MADEPALLI VENKATASWAMI Vs. MADEPALLI SURANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff sues for a share in the family properties. The defence is that he was born blind and that consequently he is not entitled to any share under the Hindu law. A number of issues were raised including the one on the question whether the plaintiff was congenitally blind. After the settlement of the issues, the parties agreed to refer the disputes to certain arbitrators The agreement to refer is very general in its terms and apparently all questions of fact and of law were referred to arbitrators. Upon the reference, the arbitrators decided that the plaintiff was entitled to a life interest in a fourth share in the properties, subject to its becoming an absolute interest in case the plaintiff married.

(2.) On the submission of this award objections were taken by the plaintiff on the ground that it was illegal on the face of it and the court should not accept it. Both the courts below have upheld this contention and have set aside the award.

(3.) In Second Appeal the learned Vakils have argued the case very elaborately; we have come to the conclusion that the courts below are wrong.