SRIKRISHNA BHAKAT Vs. RAMBHANJAN BHAKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Srikrishna, is a mahajan; and the defendant, Rambhanjan, is his gomasta. Srikrishna sued Rambhanjan for an account of the profits of certain kutis, one of which was at Bhagalpur. The dispute between them was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators found that there was a sum of Rs. 725-11-9 appearing to be due by third parties to the Bhagalpur kuti, and that of this sum Rs. 483-13 was the share of Srikrishna, the mahajan, and the residue, Rs. 241-14-6, of Rambhanjan Sing, the gomasta. The award went on to state that, if the sum of Rs. 483-13-6 could "not be recovered from the debtors, or if it be not proved that they have taken it," that sum must be paid by Rambhanjan to Srikrishna. It went on to state that Rambhanjan was to make mukabala of this sum of Rs. 483-13-6 (meaning that he was to point out the debtors, and show, on comparison of their accounts, that this sum was really due); and if there should be no proof of the alleged arrears being due from the debtors to the firm, he should pay the amount to Srikrishna out of his own pocket. The award contained a declaration that the sum of Rs. 553-13-6 found due in respect of the accounts of another kuti, was paid by Rambhanjan to Srikrishna immediately after the making of the award. The plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, under Section 327, to file the award. The defendant objected that the award could not be filed, and alleged that he had been willing to make mukdbala of the sum that was due from the debtors of the firm.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge tried that question, and found that it was not proved that the defendant had made the mukabala. He gave judgment that the plaintiff's "suit be decreed, and that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs. 483-13, with interest from date of suit to that of realization, and costs and interest." From that decision the defendant appealed to the Judge. The Judge held, firstly, that no appeal lay from the judgment enforcing award under Section 327; and, secondly, he thought that the Principal Sudder Ameen had jurisdiction, because "the matter to which the award relates, must determine the jurisdiction in this case: the matter exceeded 1,000 rupees, and hence the Principal Sudder Ameen had jurisdiction." From that decision the defendant has appealed to this Court specially. We are of opinion that the decision of the Judge is erroneous. The 325th section of Act VIII of 1859 enacts that, "in every case in which judgment shall be given according to the award, the judgment shall be final." If, then, this judgment is a judgment given "according to the award," within the meaning of the words of that section, no appeal lies. We think the expression "judgment according to the award," refers only to the case of a judgment simply following an award where the Court enforcing the award exercises no judgment on the matters referred, but simply enforces the decision of the arbitrators, not to a case where the Court pronounces a new and distinct decision, founded partly upon the award, and partly upon matters which were in issue before itself, and which were never in issue before and never adjudicated upon by the arbitrators.

(3.) We may observe that the 325th section does not take away the appeal, when the award is submitted in the form of a special case, and the Court passes judgment according to its own opinion on the special case. This shows that it is not intended to take away the appeal when the judgment proceeds, though in part only, upon matters independent of, and decided by, the award.