B KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. MTLAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected appeals arising out of the same matter and can conveniently he disposed of together. For the purpose of disposing of these appeals, it is necessary to set forth hero briefly the facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties. One Udai Ram died leaving considerable property. One of his sons was Badha Krishna by name who was married to Mt. Lakshmi Bai. Radha Krishna had a son, Jai Narain, and Krishna Gopal is his son. Udai Ram, before his death, executed a will under which he divided his estate between Krishna Gopal and Mt. Lakshmi Bai. On the death of Ddai Ram, a dispute arose between Krishna Gopal on one side and his paternal grandmother, Mt. Lakshmi Bai, on the other. They executed an agreement under which they appointed Mr. Vikarmajit Singh, an advocate practising at Gawnpore, as an arbitrator. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that there were 25 points in issue which had to be settled and he made an award. It is necessary to state here that the award is to be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act (Act 9 of 1899). On 26 November 1935 the arbitrator declared his award to the parties and? filed it in Court on 18 December 1933, notice of which was given to the par. ties in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act; but it appears that no objections were filed by either party. The arbitrator among other points, gave his decision on the following points: (l). That Mt. Lakshmi Bai should act as guardian of the three daughters of Krishna Gopal. (It may be stated here that Krishna Gopal had married a second time and the daughters are by his first wife). (2) Krishna Gopal was made to pay a sum of Rs. 15 a month on account of maintenance of each of three daughters to Mt. Lakshmi Bai. (3) Krishna Gopal should pay to Mt. Lakshmi Bai a sum of Rs. 5000 for the marriage of each of the three daughters.

(2.) Execution First Appeal No. 35 of 1937 relates to an application for execution made by Mt. Lakshmi Bai in which she-claimed a sum of Rs. 5000 on account of the marriage of one of the daughters, maintenance expenses due and certain other sundry expenses. A perusal of the application which has given rise to Appeal No. 35 of 1937 shows that two previous applications had been made and struck off and the last application was the third application. Execution First Appeal No. 532 of 1935, relates to a sum of Rupees 1125-4-0 claimed by Mt. Lakshmi Bai under the terms of the award on account of maintenance expenses etc First Appeal from order No. 135 of 1936 arises out of an application made by Krishna Gopal in the Court below for setting aside the second award. The circumstances were as follows : First award had been made by Mr. Vikarmajit Singh; it appears that some trouble arose over the marriage of one of the girls and fresh arbitration proceedings were taken. The arbitrators decided that Krishna Gopal should have the girl married within a fixed period and if he failed to do so, then Mt. Lakshmi Bai should get her married. Under the second award, it had bean decided that if the father failed to marry the girl within a fixed time, then he would pay marriage expenses to Mt. Lakshmi Bai which she might incur. No objections were taken to the second award which was given on 11 April 1935.

(3.) In all the three above-mentioned cases the judgment-debtor, Krishna Gopal, has been unsuccessful. His appeal to set aside the second award has failed. Similarly his objections in the other two appeals relating to execution have been dismissed and he has preferred these three appeals to this Court. The main contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the award, or to be more correct, both the awards were wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and therefore invalid and incapable of execution. In connexion with this matter, we have to bear in mind the provisions of Section 15, Arbitration Act of 1899, which runs as follows: 15 (1). An award on a submission, on being Sled in the Court in accordance with the foregoing provisions, shall (unless the Court remits it to the reconsideration of the arbitrators or umpire, or sets it abide) be enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court. (2)....