SITARAM JHA Vs. THAKURI JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred from the order of the Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, dated 24-3-1956, pronouncing judgment according to the award. The appellant and the respondents are members of a joint Hindu family, and there is np. dispute that both had half share each in the joint family properties. In partition suit No. 14/5 of 1945/46, a decree for partition of the joint family properties was passed and in fact the properties were divided, and both parties came in separate possession of their respective shares carved put by the final decree. It appears that this partition decree did not finally terminate the dispute between the parties and cordial relations were not restored. It is alleged that Haris Chandra Jha, father-in-law of Sitaram Jha, respondent No. 4, and Madhav Jha, father-in-law of the appellant, Sitaram Jha, were on inimical terms, and in order to feed fat their own grudge they disturbed the cordial relations, in consequence of which several criminal cases cropped up, instituted by one or the other party. Eventually, their disputes were referred to the arbitration of three persons, namely, Jatadhari Missir, Thakuri Jha and Kedarnath Missir. The arbitrators gave their written award on 26-7-1953. Later on, the award was transcribed on a stamp paper on 12-9-1953, which was duly registered on 14-9-1953. It is in accordance with this award that that decree has been passed and it is this award which is impugned. The appellant filed an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award on the grounds that the arbitration agreement dated 13-5-1953, was not genuine, that his thumb-impression was obtained on blank papers under coercion and misrepresentation and these papers were subsequently converted into a document which is now called arbitration agreement, that there was no compromise before the arbitrators, that the arbitrators misconducted themselves, that the award has been improperly procured and that the award was otherwise invalid.

(2.) ALL these points were negatived by the learned Subordinate Judge. He held that the arbitration agreement was genuine and was duly executed by the parties after full comprehension of its contents. He further held that the arbitrators held tegular sittings, and after taking evidence of the parses and considering their respective cases gave the award and that they had not misconducted themselves in the proceeding. He further held that the award given by the arbitrators was not in excess of their authority. In short, he held that the award was legal, valid and binding upon the parties.

(3.) LASTLY, it was contended that the award was vague and incapable of execution, inasmuch as plot No. 379 has been divided half and half between the parties, and at the same time the whole plot has been allotted to the appellant as homestead. This point was not taken in the Court below, nor has it been taken as a ground in the memorandum of appeal. This contention was raised for the first time in course of the argument, and I am afraid this cannot be allowed at this stage. At the same time, there are no materials on the record to support this contention. There is nothing to show what is the area of this plot, nor is there anything to show under what circumstances such division was made. Therefore, this argument cannot be entertained and must be overruled,In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.