RAM NAGINA SINGH Vs. THAKUR RAM JANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the decree passed by the lower appellate court in an appeal against a compromise decree passed by the trial court. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and the plaintiff-appellant feeling aggrieved, has come up in the instant revision.

(2.) The brief facts are these: There was a dispute between the parties in respect of a piece of land which was claimed to be the Sahan land by the plaintiff-appellant. It was alleged that the defendant- respondent interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the said piece of land and wanted to enclose the same. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from acting in the said manner. The defendant-respondent disputed the plaintiff's claim and claimed the land to belong to himself. During the pendency of the suit the parties referred their dispute to some arbitrators without the intervention of the court. An award was made by the arbitrators which was accepted by both parties and in token of their acceptance the parties signed the award. Thereafter, the defendant treating the award as a compromise moved the court to pass a decree in its terms. The plaintiff, however, filed objections and raised two grounds. He denied that the award was in the nature of a compromise between the parties. He further contended that the award if treated as a compromise was too vague to be acted upon. The trial court overruled both these contentions of the plaintiff and treating the award to be a compromise between the parties passed the decree thereon. The plaintiff felt aggrieved with the trial court's decree and went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. Two questions were raised before the said court. Firstly, it was contended that the consent spoken of in the proviso to Sec. 47 of the Arbitration Act is to be confined only to such consent as is given before the court and not a consent given outside the court. Secondly, it was contended that the award was very vague and no executable decree could be passed in its terms. Both these contentions were repelled by the lower appellate court and the trial court's decree was confirmed. The plaintiff applicant has now come up in the instant revision and his learned counsel has again contended that the consent outside the court to an award will not be a good consent. Reliance has been placed on the following cases on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant: Zeauddin v. Abdur Rafique, (AIR 1952 Pat 66); Raghunandan Rai v. Sukhlal Rai, (AIR 1952 Pat 258); (AIR 1957 Pat 656); Sitaramji Maharaj v. Ramnath Singh, (AIR 1961 Pat 448); Jumman Khan v. Mujibul Hasan Khan, (1957 All LJ 192); Moradwaj v. Bhudar Dass, (AIR 1955 All 353) (FB); Jugal Das Damodar Modi and Co. v. Purshottam Umedbhai, (AIR 1953 Cal 690); Kissan Gopal Nathani v. Murlidhar Chowdhury, (AIR 1962 Cal 581) Salima Bibi v. Mohd. Ibrahim Sahib, (AIR 1962 Andh Pra 123); Bisnath v. Bastimal, (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 208).

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party has contended that the revision is not maintainable in law as no jurisdictional error was committed by the courts below in passing their orders.