CHINTALAPUDI SANYASIRAO, MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND VENAPALLI ATCHAYYA Vs. CHINTALAPUDI VENKATRAO, MINOR BY GUARDIAN AD LITEM CHINTALAPUDI CHINNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, a minor represented by his natural father, sued to establish that he was the adopted son of Chintalapudi Sanyasayya. The defendant, who is the minor Aurasa son of the said Sanyasayya represented by his mother, opposed the suit. There was a reference to arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The defendant's mother agreed to the dispute being referred to be settled by a single arbitrator and in the muchilika that was drawn up she consented to be bound by and act according to the decision the arbitrator might give either on his own information or upon other information known in the village or by examining the witnesses of both parties should be think it necessary. The agreement to refer goes on "We shall not, before you give a decision regarding the said disputes between us, cancel this muchilika executed by us, and one of us alleging among others that you are doing injustice, or that you are partial and that your arbitration is not necessary and that you should not give decision. We shall agree to your decision itself as the final decision. We shall not contend for any reason and in any manner either in Courts or in any other places that your decision is not proper and that it cannot bind us. " The arbitrator admits that he enquired of witnesses behind the back of the parties and that he collected information and obtained an admission from the defendant's mother without noting them down in writing. The question is whether the minor defendant is bound by such a surrender by his guardian of his legal right that the witnesses should be examined in the presence of parties and whether such procedure makes the award "otherwise invalid "within the meaning of Section 15 of the 2nd Schedule, C.P.C.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge quotes Lachmi Narain V/s. Sheonath Pande (1919) I. L. R. 42 All. 185 and observes: "If the parties agreed that there was no need for him to take any evidence and that the arbitrator should decide the dispute between them on his own knowledge, no misconduct could be implied, if he decided accordingly."

(3.) That is a perfectly sound proposition provided that the parties are sui juris. But the question here is whether it was a reasonable and prudent act on the part of the guardian of a minor thus to commit the interests of her ward into the absolute power of a single person whom she permits to follow a procedure opposed to natural justice. It is improper on the part of an arbitrator to get information from one side in the absence of the other or to utilise information not accessible to others Vide Galgson V/s. Armstrong 70 L. T. 106, Harvey v. Shelton 7 Beaven 455 at 462. 49 E. R. 1144 and Dobson V/s. Groves (1844) 6 Q. B. Rep. 637 ; 115 E. R. 239. The arbitrator examined by the Court admits that he acted thus, and it also appears from the statement of plaintiff's guardian that the arbitrator acted on information obtained before the reference. I am of opinion that his procedure vitiated the award given in the present case and that the defendant's guardian could not waive her son's right to object to irregular procedure. Vide Swamirao V/s. The Collector of Dharwar (1892) I. L. R. 17 Bom. 299 which follows Rhodes V/s. Swithenbank (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 577. I would go further and characterise her conduct as gross negligence on the part of a guardian; and it has been held by this Court in Lakshminarayana Tantri V/s. Rama-handra Tantri (1917) 34 M. L. J. 71 and Chanduru Punnayya V/s. Rangam Viranna (1921) 42 M. L. J. 429 that gross negligence on the part of a next friend or guardian entitles a minor to impeach an award or a judgment passed against him. The appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. No costs. Venkatasubba Rao, J.