SATYA NARAIN Vs. JUGUL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an application made by Satya Narain, Swami Dayal, Brahma Narain, Bishun Narain and Mahesh Narain against Jugul Kishore, Bishwa Nath, Nawai Kishore and Kishun Narain minor under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Kamla Devi under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act (No. X of 1940) requiring an award to be filed and to pronounce judgment and decree in terms of the award, the Court below rejected the application and refused to grant the prayers aforesaid by an order dated the 5th of July, 1954. Aggrieved by that order the applicants have preferred this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) THE parties are descended from one Mukand Ram who had three sons Khunno Lal, Munnoo Lal and Munai Lall all of whom are dead. Jugul Kishore, Bishwa Nath and Nawal Kishore are the sons of Khunnoo Lal. THEy had another brother by name Kailash Narain who died leaving him surviving his widow Smt. Kamla Devi and his minor son Kishun Narain. Satya Narain applicant is the son of Munai Lal. Swami Dayal, Brahma Narain. Bishun Narain and Mahesh Narain applicants are the sons of Munnu Lal. THE family continued joint up to the year 1944. On the 15th of April, 1944, there was a severance in the status by means of a deed of partition where by the properties were divided. THE joint family business was turned into a partnership business in which a share was allowed to the minor as well. THE partnership business, according to the allegation made in the grounds of appeal, incurred heavy liabilities on account of the improvident acts of Jugul Kishore as managing partner who dissipated the assets of the firm. By a deed of agreement dated the 25th of September, 1952, executed by Jugul Kishore on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor nephew Kishun Narain and also by the other parties to this litigation, the partnership was dissolved and the disputes relating to the business were referred to the arbitration of certain person. That deed of agreement was supplemented by them by two other deeds dated the 1st of June, 1953 and the 26th Of June, 1953, respectively. Before the board of arbitrators a draft of a compromise alleged to have been reached by the parties was filed and the arbitrators were requested to make an award in terms thereof which they did on the 14th of October, 1953. It was this award which was required to be filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act and the Court was asked by the applicants under the provisions of the same Act that a judgment should be pronounced in terms of the award and a decree should follow it up.

(3.) BEFORE Us it is not disputed that Kishun Narain minor as a separated member of the family could only have been properly represented in the deed of agreement and in the compromise by his natural guardian, the mother. It is, however, urged before us that in view of Section 30 of the Partnership Act, the minor was not at all a partner in the business in the true sense of the term, and that at best it could be said that he had been "admitted as a minor to the benefits of partnership in the firm" and consequently he was not at all a necessary party, either to the agreement of reference to arbitration or to the award itself. Alternatively, it has been urged that if it be held that he was a necessary party to the same, he must be deemed to have been properly represented by his uncle Jugul Kishore, on whom the entire matter had been left by Smt. Kamla Devi the mother of the minor.