BADIGINCHALA PEDDA SUBBARAYADU Vs. BADIGINCHALA CHINNA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court on 3-12-1997 made the following order:

(2.) Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Smt. Vasireddy Vijaya, learned Counsel who is appointed as amicus curaie, to assist the Court since none represents the respondent.

(3.) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial question of law on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and further had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and Sections 33 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and would maintain that the finding recorded by the appellate Court that the agreement in question was not enforced by way of specific performance, and hence, the relief cannot be granted on the strength of such agreement, cannot be a sustainable finding. The learned Counsel also would submit that though an attempt was made to attack the validity of Ex.A-5 as such the same being not in serious dispute, it can be taken that Ex.A-5 was duly proved. The learned Counsel also had referred to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 2, P.W.3 being the mediator and P.W.2 who had identified the signature of other mediator, since other mediator being no more. The learned Counsel also would contend that this mediation agreement came into existence only by volition and consent of the parties, and that being so, the parties cannot dispute, on the terms agreed upon, and hence, on the strength of the said agreement, the appellant is entitled to succeed.