LENKA POLIPILLAI Vs. KARIM AMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in which it is sought to revise an order made by the District Munsif of Chodavaram declining to set aside an award passed by arbitrators unanimously. It was decided in Ayyasami Mudaliar V/s. Appandai Nayanar [1919] 38 M.L.J. 145 following the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association V/s. Houston & Co. [1896] 1 Q.B. 567. that an award to be enforceable in law must be the award of all the arbitrators without difference. Here, however, there is this distinction, that the petition of reference itself clearly states: We shall accept as final the award given by the majority of the panchayatdars.

(2.) The award is signed by a majority of three out of five. The District Munsif has found as facts that all the arbitrators were present at the deliberations, that two dissented from the decision of the majority and that they were not present when the award was actually written. He rightly concluded that the last fact did not vitiate the proceedings. There is nothing wrong in parties agreeing to abide by the award of a majority Here the award has been signed by a majority and it is binding on the parties to the reference. It is conceded, that parties who can contract for themselves can agree to a majority award, but it is said that the mother and guardian acted improperly and to the prejudice of the minor in consenting to an award by a majority- It is argued that although such a submission might have been lawful had it been made by parties both of whom were sui juris, it could not be sustained when one of the parties was a minor represented by a guardian. And reference was made to Sanyasi Rao V/s. Venkata Rao A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 301. The facts of that case were, however, entirely different; there the minor's mother and guardian consented to an arbitrator deciding the minor's claim upon information and evidence, howsoever, obtained by the arbitrator. It was held that the guardian's consent amounted to a surrender of the minor's rights and that the arbitrators eventual decision was vitiated by this misconduct and was invalid under Section 15 Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The ruling has no application.

(3.) It was urged that the guardian cannot validly do anything which is beyond the ordinary course of litigation. I do not consider that agreeing to abide by a majority award is materially different from agreeing to abide by the award of a single person; and it cannot be said that such a course would be invalid. It is anomalous that the minor is still represented by the same guardian whose action is now characterized by her advocate as grossly imprudent and detrimental. This is not a case where the guardian committed the interests of the minor into the absolute power of panchayatdars who were permitted to follow a procedure opposed to natural justice and the objection fails.