VEMUSAMI GAVARAMMA Vs. CHILUKURI PITOHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter in dispute before the arbitrator was whether the plaintiff was entitled to have a sale-deed set aside. THE arbitrator was of opinion that while the plaintiff was entitled to have it set aside, she was also bound as a matter of equity to repay the money that she had received in connection with the sale-deed. It cannot be said that he acted beyond the limits of his jurisdiction in passing what in substance was a conditional award in plaintiffs favour and the District Munsif was right, therefore, in holding that there was no ground under Rule 14, Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code, to remit the award. THE Appellate Court s decision on the merits modifying the decree of the District Munsif is wrong. In this view of the case, it is, perhaps, unnecessary to consider whether an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge at all against the Munsif s decree. THE Procedure Code provides no appeal against an order refusing to remit an award and the Full decision of this Court in Suryanaraiana, Row v. Sarabaya 21 M.L.J. 263 : 9 Ind. Cas. 173 : 9 M.L.T. 251 : 2 M.W.N. 151 is in favour of the appellant s contention that no appeal would lie in such a case. But it is unnecessary to decide that point as we hold that on the merits the Subordinate Judge is wrong. His decree must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs both here and in the lower Appellate Court.