SARJU PRASAD Vs. BRIJNARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the plaintiffs is directed against an order dated 6-7-54 of the Subordinate Judge, second Court, Chapra, affirming an order dated 27-11-53 of the learned Munsif of Gopalganj, confirming the award and directing a decree to be passed on its basis.

(2.) The circumstances under which the pre-sent application arises may shortly be stated as follows A title suit was filed by the plaintiffs petitioners for a declaration that the disputed land was the kasht land of petitioner No. 1, that the defendants had no right in it, and, therefore, the petitioners asked also for confirmation of possession, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. To this suit there were several defendants, of whom defendants 9. and 10, who are opposite parties 8 and 9, were minors. On 18-3-53 at the in- stance of the parties an application was filed for referring the matter to a sole arbitrator. To this application for reference the guardian-ad-litem of minor defendants 9 and 10 also joined, but no sanction of the court, as required by Order 32, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, was obtained for making the reference. On 18-6-53 the Arbitrator filed his award in court. This award was in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs petitioners thereafter filed objections to the award on several grounds. One of such grounds was that as no permission of the Court had been, obtained, as required by Order 32, Rule 7, of the Code, by the guardian-ad-litem of the minor defendants 9 and 10, the award was illegal, and this is the question with which we are concerned in the present application.

(3.) The learned Munsif held that as the Arbitrator found the disputed land, which was IB, 15K. 10 1/4dh. as belonging to the defendants, and to be in their possession, and has accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, the award appeared prima facie beneficial to the minors. He further found that the defendants had already filed a petition that the award should be confirmed, and as such he was satisfied that the award was beneficial to the minors. He, therefore, rejected the objection of the plaintiffs, and confirmed the award, and made it a rule of the Court, and directed a decree to be passed on the basis of the award.