PASUMARTHI BHAGAVANULU Vs. BOLLAM SEETHARAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit concerned in this Civil Revision Petition was instituted by a reversioner claiming the right as an adopted son to have his title declared to certain properties in Schedules A, B and C and to recover possession of them from the persons to whom the 1 male owner's wife and mother had alienated them. During the trial of the suit there were two references to arbitration under Shcoudle II, para. 1, C.P.C. The first was on 22nd August, 1919 by plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 who were interested in B Schedule properties. The 2nd reference was on 27 August 1919 by plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 and 4 who were interested in A Schedule properties.

(2.) It is now urged as the sole ground of revision by defendants 6 to 8 that the entire reference to arbitration and the arbitrator's award are invalid because defendants 2 and 5 did not join in the reference. 2nd defendant is the brother of 1 defendant and 5 defendant is the undviided son of 2nd defendant. They had no interest in the B Schedule properties over which the plaintiff and these petitioners were disputing. But there was a common issue between the plaintiff and all the defendants as to plaintiff's adoption.

(3.) Under Section 506 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 it was necessary that all parties to a suit should join in a reference to arbitration. In Pitam Mal V/s. Sadiq Ali and Sughra Fan-ma (1902) I.L.R. 24 All. 229 "all the parties to a suit "was interpreted as meaning all the parties interested, and in the present Code it was so expressed.