MADANLAL HAZARIMAL AGGARWAL Vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA SWAMI DEOSTHAN RAMPAILI THROUGH TRUSTEES DAMODHAR BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's father Hazarimal was the managing trustee of the Shri Ramchander Swami Deosthan which has been impleaded as defendant 1. The deosthan is a public institution and possesses properties out of which it is maintained. Considerable difference of opinion arose between the main body of trustees on the one hand and Hazarimal on the other about the latter's management and about his accounting, or the absence of it. Matters appear to have got so bad that the public also became interested and a public meeting was called on 17th April 1929. At this meeting a committee was appointed to look into the accounts and this committee, after looking into the books, reported, or so we understand, that something in the neighbourhood of Rs. 1500 was due to the deosthan from Hazarimal. The reports, Exs. P-8 and P-9, have been filed and the latter contains a volume of figures and detail into which it is unnecessary for us to go. It is difficult to find the exact figure found from these reports without entering into complicated calculations, and as that is unnecessary, we have set out the rough figure given us by counsel in the arguments. The only point about this report is that the figure found there is much lower than the one reached in later proceedings and has been used by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff (who has appealed) as the basis of his argument on the question of fraud.

(2.) THE trustees were not satisfied with this report, in fact the suggestion is that this report was collusively prepared with the aid of one Gangaram, llazarimal's agent, and that a low figure was purposely and fraudulently inserted. But however that may be, the report furnished enough foundation for the institution of civil proceedings and so a suit for accounts was launched against Hazarimal. Hazarimal died during the pendency of that suit and his minor son (the present plaintiff) was brought on record in his place. His mother was appointed guardian, but all the actual court work seems to have been done by this Gangaram. Soon after the substitution an application was put in for a reference to arbitration. The trustees (plaintiffs in that suit) were agreeable to this course but suspected that the arrangement had been made behind the back of the plaintiff's guardian, so they insisted that express authority from her should be obtained. Gangaram thereupon produced an application for reference to arbitration which purported to bear the thumb impression of the guardian. This satisfied both the Court and the trustees and, so the matter was referred to the arbitration of R.B.,N.K. Kelkar, a well-known figure in this Province and in Balaghat. He delivered a long and carefully reasoned award in which he placed Hazarimal's liability at Rs. 6995-5-3. A decree thereupon followed in terms of this award.

(3.) THIS was done, and on 21st August 1934 the following order was recorded: Defendant has brought a writing from the G.A.L. She has made her thumb mark. The mukhtyarnama and written statements also show that she makes thumb mark. With the consent of both parties R.B.N.K. Kelkar is appointed to act as the sole arbitrator to decide the matter in dispute involved in this suit.