SADHU RAM Vs. UDE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act which have been referred to a larger Bench by Narula J.

(2.) THE manner in which they have arisen is as follows. The parties are related as shown in the following pedigree table: GOBING RAM ---------------------------------------| | Sadhu Ram Ude Ram (Deft. No. 1) (Plaintiff) -----------------------------------------------------| | | Moti Ram Sumat Parshad Jai Kumar (Deft. No. 4) (Deft. No. 2) (Deft. No. 3) = Satya Devi (wife) Deft. No. 5) On the 30th of June 1962 Ude Ram filed a suit for a declaration that the joint Hindu family comprising the parties had disrupted and claiming a hair share by partition of the joint properties listed in a schedule attached to the plaint and for rendition of accounts regarding the income from the properties, or in the alternative for dissolution of certain alleged partnership firms which the plaintiff alleged had been formed only to evade income tax and in which he claimed a half share. On the first date of hearing the defendants, on the basis of an arbitration agreement contained in the partnership deed under which the firms above referred to came into existence, filed separate applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit and on the 7th of September 1962 the Court passed an order staying proceedings in that part of the suit which referred to the dissolution of the partnerships and rendition of accounts of those firms, but the plaintiff at the same time was allowed to bifurcate the suit and to proceed, if he so desired, with the suit so far as it related to the partition of joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff elected to do so subject to the result of an appeal to be filed by him against the order staying the other part of the suit under the Arbitration Act. Such an appeal was in fact filed and dismissed in limine by this Court on the 5th of November 1962, and so the plaintiff was left to proceed with the suit for the partition of the joint faimly property.

(3.) IT appears that the so-called referee took some time in giving his decision and the proceedings were adjourned on the 18th and the 21st of October 1963 because according to the orders of the trial Court "the award" was not ready. On the 28th of October Mr. Laxmi Chand filed his written statement in Court in which he set out the history of the litigation between the parties and proceeded to give his decisions on all the points in dispute between them both regarding the matters which were still before the Court in the suit for partition of the joint property as well as the matters regarding which the suit stood stayed and which were the subject matter of the reference to the arbitration of Diwan Sham Lal, Advocate. The referee gave a decision about shares of the parties and partitioned the property between them by metes and bounds and also made a sum of Rs. 60,000. 00 payable by one party to the other in a certain contingency. It may be mentioned that in the proceedings before him the referee had taken written statements of claims and counter claims from the parties and had recorded their evidence and he placed the record of the proceedings conducted before him before the Court. It is clear from the record that the defendants actively participated in the proceedings and never raised any objection to the jurisdiction or the manner in which he was proceeding.