SMT. RATNAMANI DEI Vs. JAGANATH SAHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 28 of 1966 in the Court of the Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack for declaration of title to, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of 0.287 acre appertaining to plot No. 837 and 0.102 acre appertaining to plot No. 835 under Khata No. 455 in mouza Kanpur on the strength of a sale deed dated 19.12.1964 executed in her favour by opposite parties 2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 800/ -. Her contention was that although she was the owner in exclusive possession of the suit, lands, the opposite party No. 1 who is her husband 's uncle created disturbance in her possession on the strength of a deed of petition dated 15 -1 -1963. It was alleged that either by ,fraud or by mistake the suit plot No. 837 was included in the deed of partition and was shown to have been divided between the Petitioner 's husband and the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 did not dispute the Petitioner 's claim with regard to plot No. 835, but contended that he was all along in possession of plot No. 837 along with the Petitioner 's husband and that the same had been partitioned between them. But in order to avoid future troubles, it was decided that a sale deed should be taken in respect of that plot from opposite parties 2 to 4 who were the ex -proprietors of the Touzi comprising the same and accordingly opposite party No. 1 paid to the Petitioner 's husband a sum of Rs. 400/ -as half of the consideration money; but the Petitioner 's husband fraudulently got the sale deed executed in the name of the Petitioner alone.

(3.) THE Plaintiff -Petitioner made on application to the Court for setting aside the award on various grounds, the principal ' of which was that the Arbitrator had exceeded his authority in ,directing that Defendant No. 1 shall be given a part of, the land in plot No. 837 on his paying Rs. 400/ - to the Plaintiff. It was contended that this part of the award was contrary to the pleadings. The learned Munsif set aside the award holding that the Arbitrator had made out third case not covered by the pleadings. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the learned Munsif and directed him to proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award. He, however, held that the part of the award directing payment of interest at the rate of 6 p.c.p.a. should be set aside as being vague. It is against this decision of the learned appellate Judge that the present civil revision has been preferred.