SAMMITI RANGA REDDI Vs. YALLIALURU CHINASIDDA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the plaintiff and the 4 defendant, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and another started a partnership business. On the death of the plaintiff's father, his sons became members of the partnership, and the 3 defendant was also taken in as a partner. Later on, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having died, they also became members of the partnership. The plaintiff and the 4 defendant were entitled to one-twelfth share in the partnership business. Unpleasantness having arisen between the parties, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the dissolution of the partnership, settlement of accounts, and recovery of his and his brother's one-twelfth share and for other allied reliefs. The defendants including the 4 defendant disputed the correctness of some of the statements made in the plaint. The 4 defendant also prayed that the amount due to him might be paid to him. The case was, by an order of Court, referred to an arbitration of three persons. The 4 defendant did not join in the reference and was not a party to it. One of the arbitrators did not attend three of the meetings of the arbitration board. The arbitrators gave their award and the plaintiff and the 4 defendant were given their one-twelfth share.

(2.) Before the District Munsif the award was objected to on the ground that "the reference itself from the Court was invalid for the reason that the 4 defendant had not joined the reference", and also on the ground that all the arbitrators were not present at all their meetings. He overruled the latter objection and, as regards the former, he held that, if the plaintiff was given only half of the one-twelfth share awarded to him and the 4 defendant jointly, the fact that the 4 defendant did not join the reference would not affect the validity of the award. He, therefore, gave a "judgment in the terms of the award as modified with reference to the 4 defendant's share in the amount for the plaintiff's share, viz., Rs. 608-4- 10 with subsequent interest". The present petition has been filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to revise the decree of the District Munsif; and the 4 defendant has filed a memorandum of objections effectively supporting the revision petition.

(3.) The same two objections that were pressed before the District Munsif have again been urged before me by Mr. Somayya on behalf of the petitioners. Either of the grounds, if accepted, would lead to the setting aside of the District Munsif's decree. In this judgment I propose to deal only with the first objection, namely, that the award is invalid as the 4th defendant was not a party to the reference.