VADLAPUDI SUBBAYYA SETTY Vs. VADLAPUDI CHINNA SUBBAYYA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the Revision petition arise out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 94 of 1956 and 95 of 1956. The former was for setting aside an arbitration award and the latter was for passing a decree in terms of the award.

(2.) The circumstances which have given rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated. Subbayya Chetti (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and Chinna Subbayya Chetti (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') are brothers. They have another brother Venkatasubbayya who separated himself from the family seven or eight years before suit and has since been living separately. The plaintiff and the defendant continued to be joint and carried on business at Nellore till about the middle of 1955, in which year disputes arose between them with regard to the partition of their properties. They had by then cash to the extent of about Rs. 20,000/-, stock in trade and outstandings. On the 22nd January, 1956, they made a written reference of their disputes for adjudication by five named arbitrators. It is not necessary to give the details of toe contents of this written agreement Ex. A-1. On 12th June, 1956, the arbitrators gave their award, Ex B-8. On 19th June, 1956, they gave notice of the award to the plaintiff. On 10th July, 1956, the plaintiff sent Ex. A-3 disputing the validity of the award. The arbitrators sent a reply (Ex. B-5) to the plaintiff on 26th July, 1956. The plaintiff thereupon hied an application, under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, for setting aside the award; and the arbitrators filed an application for passing a decree in terms of the award. Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules framed by the Madras High Court under the Arbitration Act (which Rules are also applicable in this state), these applications were numbered and registered as suits.

(3.) In the lower court, the plaintiff raised various grounds for setting aside the award. In a well-considered judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge held that none of the grounds was tenable and passed a decree in terms of the award. The plaintiff has thereupon preferred the appeal and the revision petition.