RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to a certain house or part of the house. The plaintiff is the son of one Ram Autar Singh deceased. The. defendant married a daughter of the said Ram Autar Singh and undoubtedly lived in the premises in dispute for a long time. The plaintiff claims that the defendant lived in the house during the life-time of Ram Autar Singh by the latter's permission and that on his father's death, he (the plaintiff) was a minor. The defendant set up a title that the premises in dispute were a gift to himself and his first wife, the daughter of Ram Autar Singh. The Court below has decided on the merits of the case in favour of the plaintiff, but nevertheless dismissed the suit on the ground next herein after mentioned. The defendant pleaded that the parties by agreement dated the 28 November 1902, referred certain disputes (including the dispute as to the title of the house) to arbitration, that the plaintiff, refused to perform his contract and that, therefore, the suit is barred by Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) There is no doubt that the contract was entered into and the agreement signed by the parties. The arbitrators were ready and willing to go on with the arbitration. Both parties at first attended before the arbitrators and produced their witnesses. The defendant says (at page 7 B.) The arbitrators gave Ram Koomar and myself a notice that on such and such a date there will be a meeting of the arbitrators and that we should attend. 1 attended the meeting regularly; but Ram Koomar did not attend. I asked the arbitrators to make an award. They said that they would not make an award until both parties attended. Ram Koomar gave notice to the arbitrators not to make an award." This evidence is not contradicted and there can be no doubt that the award was not made because of the conduct of the plaintiff and the notice sent by him. The defendant suggests that the plaintiff sent the notice and refused to attend the proceedings because the arbitrators has intimated their opinion on one of the matters referred to them against the plaintiff; however this may be, the plaintiff has given no evidence of any kind that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct.

(3.) It is argued for the plaintiff that -when he signed the agreement, ho had altogether performed the contract and that accordingly it cannot be said that he refused to perform the contract" within the meaning of the section. It seems to me that such a construction cannot he given to the, section. In my opinion a contract to refer disputes to arbitration implies a contract to do all things necessary to the making of a valid award so far as the parties are concerned. If the contract was not rescinded I would hold on the evidence that the plaintiff refused to perform his contract within the meaning of the section.