RAMPRATAP CHAMRIA Vs. DURGAPRASAD CHAMRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order made by Mr. Justice Greaves for cancellation of an award made by arbitrators.

(2.) The subject matter of the litigation is alleged to be the estate left by one Hardatrai Chamria whose name appears in the following genealogical table:

(3.) On the 12 January, 1922, Rampratap instituted a suit against his cousins Durgaprasad, Radhakissen and Motilal; as also against his sister-in-law Surji and his nephew Keshabdeo. The allegations in the plaint may be briefly summarised. Nandaram left two sons Gorakbram and Hardatrai. The former died in 1914 leaving the plaintiff as his surviving son, and Surji, his daughter-in-law, the widow of Arnlokchand who had predeceased him in 1911. Hardatrai, the brother of Gorakhram, took Durgaprasad in adoption, and thereafter two sons were born to him, namely, Radhakissen and Motilal. Though Hardatrai started a business by his own exertions; Rampratap and Amlokchand were taken as partners therein : their shares varied from time to time, and after the death of Amlokchand, Hardatrai had 11 annas share and Rampratap 5 annas share. An indenture was executed on the 1 October, 1916, between Hardatrai and Rampratap in respect of the business; but as Surji expressed a desire to take Motilal in adoption, Hardatrai, with the consent of Rampratap, set apart 2 annas out of his 11 annas share for the benefit of Motilal. On the 16 November, 1916, two documents appear to have been executed, one an agreement for management of the firm of Hardatrai Chamria & Co., the other an agreement by Way of family settlement to regulate the rights of the parties. It is stated that Surji adopted not Motilal but Keshabdeo. In these circumstances, the suit was instituted on the 12 January, 1922 by Rampratap against the other members of the family. On the 11 May, 1922, a document was executed by Annardeyi (the widow of Hardatrai), Rampratap, Durgaprasad, Radhakissen, Motilal and Keshabdeo (through Surji). Arbitrators were appointed for the settlement of all matters in dispute amongst the parties; it was agreed that in respect of the suit the necessary parties should apply to the Court in accordance with the directions of the arbitrators, whose decisions would be binding on them. On the 23 May, 1922, an order was made on the petition of the parties to the suit, and the matters in difference in the litigation between the parties thereto were referred to the arbitrators named in the agreement in terms thereof; the Court certified that the order made was for the benefit of the infant Keshabdeo. The arbitrators held their sittings on the 24th, 26 and 27 May, 1922, and made their award on the last named day. The award was sent to the Registrar on the 31 May 5 but it was not till the 4 July that the award was filed both in the suit and under the Indian Arbitration Act. Mr. Justice Greaves has analysed the provisions of the award which need not be set out except in bare outline for our present purpose; but it must be stated at the outset that the award deals with matters outside the suit and concerns one person at least who was not a party to the suit. The award recites that the arbitrators had arrived at decisions on the basic points of dispute and desire to make an award so as to enable the parties to adjust accounts and effect divisions of their properties.