KROTTAPALLI GOPALAM Vs. MYNENI SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against a decree of the Lower Court confirming an award. The 1 defendant and Sriramulu, the husband of 2nd defendant were brothers. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that 1 defendant's father Venkayya brought his sister's son Nagayya, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 into the family as illatom son-in-law, promising him a share in the family property sanctioned by usage to a person in his position; that, when Sriramulu died early in 1923, the plaintiffs claimed their share from the 1 defendant and the 2nd defendant also claimed maintenance, that these two disputes were referred to arbitration, the arbitrators being P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.W.I and that the arbitrators passed an award Ex. A. giving to the plaintiffs a third share of the family property and to the 2nd defendant certain land for maintenance. The 1st defendant refused to carry out the first part of the award and the plaintiffs sued to enforce it. The Lower Court passed a decree in their favour and the 1 defendant appeals. The 1st defendant challenges the legal validity of the award on two main grounds: first, that the matter of the plaintiffs claim to a share in the family property was never referred at all; and secondly, that the award is vitiated because the arbitrators have relied on their own personal knowledge and not on evidence given before them for the decision of the case. We shall deal with these points in order.

(2.) The first point has to be decided on the terms of the reference which is Ex. B. It runs: As first Nagayya, the father of one of us, Suryanarayana and later ray younger brother Anjayya were being kept in the house of the late Venkayya for conducting the duties of the house and as the wife and heir of the late Sriramulu. the eider brother of one of us, Gopalam, had claimed proper maintenance for her livelihood, etc., and so we are disputing about this affair, we both desire that you should act as panchayatdars and settle the above disputes between us.

(3.) It is signed by the 1 plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and the 1 defendant. It is evident that the only matter mentioned in it as a claim of any kind is the maintenance affair of the 2nd defendant. But the plaintiffs urge that the mention of Nagayya and Anjayya being kept in the house was made because there was this other claim by the plaintiffs to a share and that, because of that mention of these facts the Court is to infer that the other claim was not only advanced by them but was specifically referred for arbitration. It was also emphasised for the plaintiffs that the word disputes is in the plural and therefore there must have been more than one dispute. It is further urged that if Ex. B is obscure because of ambiguity, it is permissible to take and consider extraneous evidence as to what was really referred; and the plaintiffs urge that that evidence is wholly in favour of their interpretation of Ex. B. Now Ex. B is clear and quite intelligible as it stands. The fact that there is no very convincing reason appearing in it for inserting the statement about the 1 plaintiff's father and brother being kept in the house is not a ground for holding that the document considered as a reference is obscure. Nor is a Court entitled to speculate as the Lower Court has done on what must have been the reasons for the insertion of this statement. As to the use of the plural disputes, even if the plural was designedly usedand that is a considerable assumptionthe document itself says that the 2nd defendant was claiming livelihood, etc., so that the plural may legitimately be used of her claims alone. It is difficult to believe that if this was a deliberate document as it is claimed to be, setting out what were the disputes to be settled the statement of claim by the plaintiffs for a share in the family property, which was the more important of the two claims should have been omitted altogether, if it really had been referred, unless the omission was deliberately made with intent to deceive the 1 defendant who is an illiterate man.