BIDHICHAND Vs. DARSHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this appeal are that the Respondent Darshanlal filed a suit on his be - half and on behalf of his minor sons against his father Bidhichand, his brother Ramjidas and the minors of Ramjidas for partition of joint family property. During the pendency of the suit on 21 -10 -1948 Darshanlal, Ramjidas and Bidhichand agreed in writing to refer their dispute to five named persons.

(2.) MR . Ravidutta Sharma learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants first urged that the parties agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration without any order of reference by the Court: that an award obtained in such arbitration was invalid and illegal and could not be enforced as an award or a compromise under Order 23,Rule 3.

(3.) IN 'Nihal Singh v. Ashtabakar', AIR 1930 Lah 860 (F), Dalip Singh J., held that an award which has been accepted by the parties can and should be considered to be a compromise, for the parties agree to abide by the terms of the award and that if the award is signed by the parties, it becomes a compromise and is binding on them. In ' : AIR 1953 Cal 690(A)', cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant also a distinction was made between the enforcement of an award and the enforcement of a distinct and subsequent agreement to abide by the award and it was pointed out that such a subsequent agreement is always enforceable as a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3.