GAJA SINHVA RAO Vs. SUJAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Secunderabad; whereby the application for filing an award has been dismissed. The award, which is dated July 30, 1949, has given the appellant a sum of Rs. 17,666 -13 -5 against the respondent. Altogether four grounds were urged by the respondent for not passing a decree in terms of the award. Two of them were not pressed in the lower Court. One of the remaining two has been disallowed and the other sustained as sufficient reason for dismissing the application. The appellant challenges the correctness of the decision rejecting the award and the respondent, while maintaining the legal soundness of the judgment on this point, disputes the validity of the rule on which the Court below has disallowed his other objection. In order to appreciate their respective arguments, it is necessary to give in some detail the facts of the case.

(2.) IT appears that a partnership consisting of three persons, Ananthan Krishna Rao, Malhar Rao and Narsingh Rao had obtained a contract in the name of Malhar Rao from the Forest Utilisation Officer for the supply of timber to A.B.E., Park, Secunderabad. Towards the end of 1942, another contract was entered into between the partnership and the respondent; under which the partners were to advance money to the respondent to enable him to purchase and install a saw mill, he was to saw timber supplied by them and for the work was to receive twelve annas per cubic foot of sawn timber, such charges were to be set off against the amount advanced and was to deliver in the shape of sawn timber 50 per cent. of the quality of logs delivered to him, sufficient quantity of timber were to be supplied to keep the Saw Mill engaged, otherwise he would be at liberty to accept work from other persons. It is admitted that Rs. 30,958 -8 -9 were advanced and Rs. 28,190 -1 -4 repaid. It is further admitted that 36,179 -6 -1 cubic feet of round logs of wood were supplied and 14,779 -0 -0 cubic feet of sawn timber delivered.

(3.) THE Court below has rejected the respondent's objection that as Malhar Rao, Narsingh Rao and the other son of the deceased, Anantha Krishna Rao, were no parties to the reference, the agreement was void. Notwithstanding the rejection, it was urged before us as an additional reason for disallowing this appeal.