KONERU VENKATA SUBBAIAH Vs. KONERU VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are filed by the 2nd and 1st respondents against the judgment and decretal order of the learned Subordinate Judge in O. P. No. 83 of 1987. As both the revisions are against the same order, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The 1st Respondent in both the revisions filed the O.P., under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying the Court to confirm the Award, dated 15-9-1985 passed by the arbitrators; to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deliver possession of the lime garden and house bearing No. 17/458 and the down portion of D.No. 17/358/B-1, and further to direct the 1st Respondent to cause production of the original award and the consent letter and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and further to direct the 2nd respondent to pay Rs. 62,000.00 to the Petitioner as per the award, apart from declaring the 1/3rd right in Item No. 10 of the vacant site bearing D.No. 18/39 situate in B. Syedsab Street, Cuddapah and to effect the partition of the said vacant site into three equal shares and to deliver one such share to the Petitioner. The said O. P. was filed alleging that the Petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st Respondent and the members of the joint family and the 1st Respondent was the Manager of the joint family. It was stated that the 1st Respondent was originally a resident of Satthupalli of Rajampet taluk. One Tenkayala Venkatamma, a native of Cuddapah town, who was distantly related to the 1st Respondent, was having only daughter by name Subbamma and she has no sons. She brought the 1st Respondent, with an intention to give her only daughter in marriage to him and consequently with an intention to look after her household affairs. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent married her daughter Subbamma. Venkatamma died on 22-8-1967 leaving behind the Items 1 and 2 of the petition schedule property, apart from other movables and all the properties devolved on the Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3. The Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3 have acquired the other items of properties and there was no partition till date and therefore all the members of the joint family gave their consent on 15-5-1985 agreeing to bind themselves on the award to be passed by the elders, named in the Muchelika, said to have been executed on that day. It was also stated that the said arbitrators, after considering all the joint family properties, have passed an award on 15-9-1985 allotting specific schedule of properties to the Petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 3. A Photostat copy of the Award was served on all the parties by the Arbitrators and a copy of the same was filed and marked as Ex. A-1 on behalf of the Petitioner. Even though the said award was acted upon and delivered certain of the properties to the Petitioner, but certain of the items were not delivered. Hence filed the present O. P. to pass a judgment in terms of the award and also for the reliefs as referred earlier.

(3.) This was contested by the Respondents. The Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 747 of 1998, who was the 2nd Respondent in the O. P., filed his counter stating that he did not execute any Muchelika agreeing to refer the matter to the arbitration and the alleged award is only a forged document and therefore no decree could be passed in terms of the said arbitration award. It was also stated that the Petitioner in the O. P. filed O. S. No. 69 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court for partition of his 1/4th share in the joint family properties. He also filed another suit O.S.No. 574 of 1985 in the same Court against the 1st Respondent father for dissolution of the partnership firm Koneru Venkataiah and Sons and also for rendition of accounts. The 1st Respondent as well as the 3rd Respondent have filed written statements in those suits, but they did not state anywhere as to the alleged reference to the arbitration under the alleged Muchelika, executed by all the members. The story of reference to the arbitrators is fraudulent and concocted one. Under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, there must be a reference to the Arbitrators signed by the parties. The arbitrators must enter upon the arbitration and make enquiry and then pass appropriate award and give notice thereof to the parties. As none of these events had taken place, the claim made by the Petitioner in the O. P. is liable to be rejected. Even with reference to the Limitation also the 2nd Respondent in the O.P. contended that it is barred by limitation under Art. 119 of the Limitation Act. Hence, sought for dismissal of the O. P.