MANGALI PERSHAD Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of one-third share of a house. The house originally belonged to Mulu and on his death his three sons, Narpat, Ram Sahai and Alkhi became joint owners of one-third share each. Narpat mortgaged his one-third share in 1901 to his brother, Ram Sahai for Rs. 150, with possession. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Narpat. They allege that they redeemed the mortgage in 1922 by paymentof the mortgage money to Anokhey Lal, son of Ram Sahai. They alleged that in spite of the redemption Anokhey Lal and defendants 2 to 4, who are the sons of Alkhi, refused to allow the plaintiffs to take possession; hence the suit.

(2.) The defence set up by defendants 2 to 4 was that in 1909 there was a partition of the house between the three brothers. The partition was in accordance with an arbitration award. According to the terms of the award Narpat relinquished his one-third share in the house in consideration of release from liability to pay the mortgage money, and the two brothers Ram Sahai and Alkhi were allotted a half share each in the house. It is pleaded, therefore, that Narpat surrendered his equity of redemption and the plaintiffs had no right to make the so-called "redemption" in 1922 and are not entitled to recover possession of Narpat's share.

(3.) The plaintiffs contend that they are not bound by the award of the arbitrators since they were no parties to it. Their father signed the award but his action is not binding upon them since it amounted to a relinquishment of his interests without legal necessity and without any benefit to the family It was also pleaded that the arbitration award was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.