PARSHOTTAMDAS NAROTTAMDAS PATEL Vs. KEKHUSHRU BAPUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a number of questions of law, The plaintiffs, as representatives of the khatedara and inhabitants of the village of Ralej in Borsad Taluka, brought a suit to have the award dated July 9, 1929, passed between them and the defendants, the iuamdars of the village, filed in Court and a decree passed upon it under Schedule II, para 21, of the Code of Civil Procedure, A number of objections were taken by the defendants to the filing of the award, some of them of a very technical nature. Most of them were overruled by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nadiad, but he declined to file the award on two grounds. The first ground was that the award which was sought to be filed in Court was not the original award made by the arbitrators, but a second award which had been made after the first award had been passed, and that the arbitrators had no authority, after passing the first award, to review it or substitute a second award for it. The second ground on which he refused to file the award was that one of the arbitrators, Parshottam, was not present at the making of the award and did not sign it along with the other arbitrators, and the Judge held also that this was an objection to the filing of the award which justified his refusal to file it.

(2.) The plaintiffs have appealed, and at the appeal, besides the two points to which I have already referred, a further ground was taken on behalf of the appellants that the defendant- inamdar having by his conduct induced the arbitrators to modify or make a fresh award, and also having induced the plaintiffs to agree to this modification of the award, it is not now open to him to seek to go behind the award, the modification of which he was instrumental in obtaining. Another point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the form of the suit is bad, and therefore the award should not be filed. This was a ground decided in his favour by the lower Court There are certain questions in connection with this last ground which are of some difficulty. But it is possible to decide the case on the first two grounds alone, although I will deal shortly with the two remaining grounds, inasmuch as they both involve questions of law of some importance.

(3.) The facts are that there being disputes on various grounds between the inamdar- defendants and their tenants, a number of persons suggested that the disputes between them should be referred to arbitration, a proposal which was accepted by the inamdar. We need not go into the question of who was responsible for this reference. The submission paper was signed by 145 persons purporting to be khatedars of the village of Ralej. It has been contended that this paper is signed or purports to have been signed by persons who are dead and persons who have no connection with the village. That is a point which will arise a little later on. However that may be, the inamdar agreed to go to arbitration, and the submission paper was signed by him as well as by these other persons, that is Exhibit 44, and the arbitrators appointed are five, viz., Mr. Dadubhai Purshottamdas, as umpire, Darbar Gopaldas Ambaidas, Parsottam Narandss, Motibhai, and Vallavbhai Narsinhbhai Ishwardas; Parshottam, No. 3, was the nominee of the inamdar, a fact which has some importance in the present case. After considering the case of either party these arbitrators admittedly gave an award. The date of that award is not known, nor is it before the Court. But there is ample evidence consisting of the admissions of all the arbitrators who have been examined that there was an award. After that award had been passed, the inamdar took objection to certain clauses in it. The other side agreed to certain modifications in the award, and ultimately the present award, which is now sought to be filed under Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code, was passed on July 9, 1929.