SWAMIRAO KONHER NADGIR Vs. CHANNAPPA UPPINA HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this case sued the defendants for the amount due to them in respect of transactions which had been effected between them and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from February 15, 1918, to December 26, 1919. It appears that soon after the transactions between the parties there was a reference to arbitration. That reference was signed by defendant No. 1 Swamirao and the plaintiffs. The arbitrators provided in their award that the amount of Rs. 18,623-1-3 was the balance due by Swamirao to the plaintiffs on December 26, 1919; but they allowed remission as regards the excess over Rs. 15,000, and provided that Rs. 4,000 should be paid by a certain date, and that the present defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should convey the family property to be enjoyed by the plaintiffs for ten years and that the debt should be treated as satisfied at the end of that period. If they did not act according to the award, the whole sum claimed was to be payable by Swamirao. It appears that the properties were not conveyed to the plaintiffs as contemplated in that award. Certain bales were handed over to the arbitrators with the intention that the sale proceeds might be appropriated towards the sum of Rs. 4,000, which was provided in the award to be paid up by a certain date. But those bales were not found by the arbitrators to be sufficient to cover that sum and they remained unsold until they were sold after the present suit was filed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the present suit on the basis of their original transactions, and in the alternative on the basis of the award. Defendant No. 1 and the other defendants Nos. 2-6 filed separate written statements, but in effect they pleaded that the transactions of the plaintiffs were with Swamirao only, and that neither defendant No. 2, the brother of Swamirao, nor defendant No. 3, the son of Swamirao, nor defendants Nos. 4 to 6, the minor sons of defendant No. 2, were liable for the amount claimed. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable because of the award, and it was also contended that the award was not binding upon defendants other than defendant No. 1.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the defendants pleaded that they were agriculturists. They were found by the trial Court to be agriculturists. On the remaining issues in the case arising on the pleadings, the learned trial Judge found that the suit was maintainable in spite of the award; that having regard to the terms of the award, the award had ceased to be operative ; and he also found that the transactions between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were really transactions for and on behalf of the whole joint family of which Swamirao was the manager. He held the alleged dealings between the parties proved, and also found that the dealings were carried on for the benefit of the joint family and with the consent of the other adult members of the family.