MISRI LAL Vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Gonda dismissing an application under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act which was treated as a suit, for the filing of an award and for a decree on the basis of the award.

(2.) THE plaintiffs appellants and the defendant are own brothers, being the sons of Patan Din. They formed a joint Hindu family and were possessed of business and movable and immovable properties. Disputes arose amongst the brothers and ultimately it was agreed that the properties be partitioned. An agreement was executed on the 8th October, 1946, by means of which the parties appointed six arbitrators, including a sarpanch, for the partitioning of the properties and for settling, the dispute. The arbitrators then entered upon their duty and after examining the parties and their evidence gave an award on 13-1-1947. The award was registered. On 14-7-1947, an application was made by the plaintiffs appellants purporting to be one under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, though it was wrongly described as an application under Section 51 of the Act, praying that the arbitrators be directed to file the award and a decree be passed on the basis of the award. Notices were then issued to the respondent and the arbitrators; and Bechchu Lal the sarpanch filed the award in Court along with the registered agreement on 25-8-1947. Objections were, however, raised on behalf of the respondent challenging the validity of the award on various grounds. It was contended that certain properties had been left out and had not been partitioned, that two of the panches--Moti Sonar and Kodai Halwai, were not present on all the sittings of the panches and did not join in the award, that Ganesn Dutt Misir -- one of the panches, refused to act as arbitrator, that the panches showed partiality to the applicant and did not divide the property properly and that no notice of the award was given to the respondent. It was also alleged that the application was barred by time.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the parties had entered into an agreement on 8-10-1946, by means of which six arbitrators, including Bachchu Lal Sarpanch were appointed for settling the disputes and for the partitioning of the property of the parties. The main grounds of contention on behalf of the defendant, however, were that the theka pi village Beli and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited with Lakshmi Saraf had not been partitioned by the panches. It has also been contended in appeal that the award had not been proved and that the applica tion was barred by time. The other points raised in the Court below have not been seriously pressed in appeal. 4a. The first point, therefore, which arises for determination is whether the award had been proved. The original award, which is a registered document and is properly stamped, was filed by the sarpanch in Court on 25-8-1947.