REWATI RAMAN SHUKLA Vs. RAMKHILAWANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of his suit for declaration of his right and title to his particular share and for partition of the joint Hindu family property on the ground of non-maintainability of the suit, consequent to the bar under section 32 & 33 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) The plaintiff, claiming the relationship with the defendants in the manner as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, had filed the suit for declaration of his share in the ancestral property and for partition thereof. Apart from other allegations in support of his claim, it was equally specifically alleged in Paras 16 and 17 of the plaint that under an agreement dated 16.5.71, he and the defendants No. 1 to 3 had referred their mutual dispute to certain Panchas, in the matter of partition to certain ancestral properties, and the Panchas had given their Award on 16.6.71. Since, the written Award was not on any stamp paper and was not registered, it had not been made a rule of the Court; and as such, the said partition by the Panchas was a nullity and ineffective. 1 he defendants No. 1 to 3, apart from other contentions, challenging the plaintiffs claim for partition, had contended that since the Award of the Panchas had not been revoked or cancelled by the competent Court, the suit as framed, was not maintainable in face of the bar u/s 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The trial Court took up the question of maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue and vide its detailed order, which is impugned before me, held that the suit was barred under these particular provisions of the Arbitration Act, and, accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Hence, now, the plaintiffs present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has vehemently urged that there was neither any Agreement for reference to Arbitration nor was their any Award nor was the plaintiffs claim based in the least on the Award; and as such, bar u/s 32 of the Act was not attracted. The respondents learned counsel, reiterated the same arguments as had been advanced by the trial Court, for holding that the suit was not maintainable.