DHARMU SABOTO Vs. KRUSHNA SABOTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two miscellaneous appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in two Misc. Oases Nos. 23 of 1949 and 44 of 1949. Misc. Case No. 23 of 1949 arises out of an application Bled On 28 -3 -49 by the five arbitrators to whom the matters in dispute between one Dharmu, Saboto and his three sons Krushna. Baurl and Dasrathi had been referred for decision under a Muchalika executed by the latter on 23 -1 -48 in which the opposite parties are the parties to the reference, namely, Dharmu Saboto and his three sons, along with the award passed by them, praying that action may be taken by the Court according to law.

(2.) AFTER notice of the filing of the award was issued to the opposite parties, Krushna Saboto filed a petition under Section 30, Arbitration Act praying that the award should either be set aside as invalid or remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration and rectification for the various reasons mentioned in the petition which was numbered as Misc. Case N. 44 of 1949. Dasrathl Saboto filed a counter contending that the award was invalid and inoperative and should therefore be set aside. Dharmu Saboto and Bauri Saboto filed a counter contending that the objections raised to the award were not tenable and that therefore it should be upheld and a decree passed in terms thereof.

(3.) DHARMU Saboto and his three sons Krushna, Bauri and Dasarathi made a private reference to arbitration consisting of five arbitrators asking them to settle the matters in dispute between them with regard to the partition of the family property by a Muchalika executed by them on 23 -1 -48. In the application filed by the arbitrators, the arbitrators alleged that under the Muchalika they were empowered to divide all the properties of the parties to the reference and made an award on 19 -1 -49 after a full enquiry, and thatthe award was pronounced in 20 -1 -49 and was registered on 21 -1 -49.