V SREENIVASA CHARIAR Vs. PKUMARA THATHACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am of opinion that the learned District Judge was mistaken in applying the decisions in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Chinta Reddi 15 Ind. Cas. 378 ; 37 M. 408 ; 22 M.L.J. 447 ; 11 M.L.T. 209 ; (1912) M.W.N. 393 to the facts of this case.

(2.) In Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Chinta Reddi 15 Ind. Cas. 378 ; 37 M. 408 ; 22 M.L.J. 447 ; 11 M.L.T. 209 ; (1912) M.W.N. 393 this Court had before it an agreement, as to which there was no written record, of the exact representations of the parties, to postpone the settlement of a dispute, and to take a Small Cause suit out of the control of the Small Cause Court having jurisdiction to decide it, and to make the decision of the Small Cause suit depend upon the decision of the District Munsif in an original suit whose decision would in the ordinary course be subject to appeal. The effect of recognising such an agreement would have been to abrogate the unsuccessful party s right of appeal against the District Munsif s decision and to oust the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court in a manner not contemplated by law Accordingly the learned Judges declined to give effect to such an "unauthorised" agreement.

(3.) We have also been referred to the case of Rukhanbai v. Adamji 1 Ind. Cas. 622 ; 33 B. 69 ; 10 Bom. L.R. 366 decided by a single Judge. There, Beaman, J., was dealing with a case of an agreement to refer the matter in dispute in an administration suit to the decision of an Assistant Commissioner. He held that there had been no regular submission to arbitration and no acceptance by the parties of the so-called arbitrator s award. He finally made an order referring the matter back to the very same arbitrator. The facts of that case are dissimilar from those of this case. Now in the present case we have an agreement in writing signed by the Vakils of the contesting parties to abide by the final decision of another appealable suit in a connected case. I fail to see any valid reason why this agreement plus the final decision of the High Court in Original Suit No. 295 of 1886 does not conclude the claims of the parties in this suit and operate as an adjustment of the suit.