MAHMUD SHEIKH Vs. KANKINARAH CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from two suits for ejectment. After some adjournments the parties came to an agreement that the defendants should vacate the lands in suit, on compensation being paid to them for building, and that the sum to be paid by way of compensation should be fixed by three independent gentlemen mentioned in the petition of compromise. The trial Court thereupon referred the question of compensation to the arbitration of these gentlemen. One of them, however, refused to act and the other two co- opted another member, and those three proceeded to make an award. On receipt of the award, the learned Munsif made a decree in accordance therewith, in spite of objections by the defendants. The objections were four in number and they have been set out in the Munsif's judgment. Nothing has been said to us about the 1 and 2nd, so I do not refer to them. The third related to the fact that when Babu Ramgopal Bhattacharja refused to act, the other two co-opted Dr. Brojo Raj Ghosh without the intervention of the Court. The fourth was that the arbitrators were to make a valuation for the consideration of the Court along with other evidence.

(2.) Against the Munsif's decrees the defendants preferred appeals, and the learned Judge has held that no appeal lay. The only argument addressed to him on behalf of the defendants was that the so called arbitrators were merely to submit to the Munsif their estimate of the proper value of the building. The learned Judge overruled this argument and I think he was right in doing so. The terms of the compromise and of the reference are quite clear.

(3.) Before us, emphasis was laid on the third objection. It is admitted that the objection was not specifically set out in the grounds of appeal to the District Court and in this Court, but it is said that the general grounds that the decree was not in accordance with the provisions of the Code is wide enough to cover it. It is also admitted that the objection does not appear to have been pressed before the Judge, but again it is said that the objection raises a pure question of law and can, be taken at this stage of the case.