GOVINDA GOUDA Vs. KALU HOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Khan raised two contentions-

(2.) IT is now the admitted case of the parties that Sulla Gouda adopted defendant gobinda Gouda. He had executed a registered adoption deed (Ex. A) dated 12-41955 in evidence of the adoption. Later on there were differences between them. On 27-5-1958 they executed an arbitration agreement (Ex. B) conferring authority on Sarpanch Krushna Chandra Das to effect a partition between them. On 10-71958, the arbitrator passed an award (Ex. 1) which was registered dividing the properties equally between them. Ka schedule property fell to the share of Sulla and Kha schedule to that of the defendant. The Award was, however, not made a rule of the Court under Section 14 of the Act. On 31-12-1958 Sulla Gouda executed a registered deed of gift (Ex. 2) in favour of Kalu Gouda (plaintiff 1)conveying the lands covered by Ka schedule in the Award which is the subject-matter of this suit. Sulla died in January 1959. On 9-2-1959 plaintiff 1 executed a registered sale-deed (Ex. 3) in respect of a portion of the property out of the Ka sch. in the Award in favour of Rahaso Goudani (plaintiff 2 ). The case of the plaintiffs is that though the award was not made a rule of the court, it was acted upon. The properties were divided by metes and bounds, Sulla and the defendant respectively possessed Ka and Kha schedules of land as allotted to them under the Award. After the registered deed of gift, plaintiff 1 was in possession of the property gifted to him by Sulla. A proceeding under Section 145, cr. P. C. in respect of the suit land terminated in favour of the defendant on 3011-1960. The suit was accordingly filed for declaring plaintiffs' title and possession in respect of the suit land and for recovery of the deposit made in the Criminal court and for subsequent mesne profits. Defendant took the plea that the Award was not made a rule of the Court, was not acted upon, Sulla and the defendant continued in joint possession of the entire Ka and Kha schedule properties, referred to in the Award, and that on the death of sulla, defendant is entitled to the entire properties. Absolutely no allegation was made in the written statement that the arbitration agreement was to stifle criminal prosecution.