MUTHYALA NARAYANAPPA Vs. MUTHYALA RAMACHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to these cases before us are brothers. By an agreement, dated 31 October, 1926, the parties agreed to have their disputes relating to partition settled by three specified arbitrators. During the course of the arbitration proceedings one of the arbitrators died. One of the brothers filed O.S. No. 8 of 1929 on 22nd March, 1929, against his brother. The 1 defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 applied under para. 18 of the second Schedule of the Civil P. C. to have the suit stayed. The Court held that the arbitration could go on with a fresh arbitrator that may be appointed by the Court. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 preferred an appeal against that order, and the learned District Judge set aside that order, holding that the arbitration agreed to between the parties could not go on, as one of the arbitrators was dead, and as there was no provision in the agreement regarding the appointment of a substitute in the place of the arbitrator who is dead. Against the decision of the learned District Judge directing the suit to proceed, the 1 defendant has preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1034 of 1930.

(2.) The 1 defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 subsequently filed O.S. No. 27 of 1929 in August, 1929, for enforcing the arbitration after the appointment of a fresh arbitrator in the place of the deceased one. Having regard to the view taken by the learned District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1929 (which is the subject-matter of the revision petition before us already referred to), the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 272 of 1930 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 1929 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 27 of 1929.

(3.) The substantial question for decision in the two cases being the same, they were heard together in this Court.