Judgement

Bhagwati J.- The plaintiff filed O. P. No. 15 of 1945 in the Court of the District Judge of Anantapur for setting aside an award on the. ground inter alia of legal misconduct of the arbitrator. The trial court set aside the award. The High Court on appeal reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff s suit. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff with the certificate of the High Court against that decision.

2. One P. Narayanappa died in 1927 leaving him surviving the plaintiff his widow, the defendant 1 his undivided brother, the defendant 2 a son of his another pre-deceased brother and defendant 3 his son by his pre-deceased wife. The deceased had purported to make a will dated 1st May 1927 under which he had made Certain provision for her maintenance and residence. The plaintiff stayed with the family for Some time but had to leave the family house owing to disputes which arose between her and the senior wife of defendant 1. She lived with her mother for eleven years and ultimately filed a suit in forma pauperis O. S. No. 19 of 1943 in the Court of the District Judge of Anantapur, for maintenance, arrears of maintenance, residence and household utensils as also recovery at some jewels and clothes as her stridhanam properties. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff contending that sufficient arrangement had been made for her maintenance and residence under. the will dated 1st May 1927, that she had accordingly been in possession and enjoyment of the property and that her claim was unsustainable. The defendants also denied her claim for jewels and clothes.

3. The suit came on for hearing and final disposal before the subordinate Judge of Anantapur. When the plaintiff was being examined as P. W. 1, in the suit on 27th February 1945, all the parties filed a petition under s. 21. Arbitration Act, agreeing to appoint Sri Konakondla Rayalla Govindappa Guru as the sole arbitrator for settling the disputes in the suit and to abide by his decision and asking the Court to send the plaint, written statement and other records to the arbitrator for his decision. A reference to arbitration was accordingly made by the Court. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and on 6th March 1945 examined the plaintiff and got from her a statement which is Ex. No. 4 in the record. He similarly examined the defendant 1 on 10th March 1945 and got from him the statement which is Ex. No. 5 in the record. After obtaining the two statements, the arbitrator made and published his award on 12th March 1945. It was this award that was challenged by the plaintiff.

4. The legal misconduct which was alleged against the arbitrator was that he examined each party in the absence of the other. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that even though the petition for reference to arbitration as also the statements Exs. Nos. 4 and 5 authorised the arbitrator to settle the disputes according to law after perusing the plaint and the written statements, the arbitrator examined defendant 1 in the absence of the plaintiff and also perused, what was called the settlement of 1st May 1927 without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to have her say in the matter and was thus guilty of legal misconduct. It was contended on the other hand by the defendants that what was done by the arbitrator was merely to obtain from the parties a reiteration of their request contained in the petition that he should give his award on the basis of the pleadings, that not a single fact was recorded by the arbitrator from the defendant 1 which did not find a place in his written statement and that therefore the arbitrator was not guilty of legal misconduct.

5. The petition filed by the parties on 27th February 1945 did not give any special powers to the arbitrator. The arbitrator was appointed for settling the disputes in the suit and the parties agreed to abide by his decision. The plaint, the written statement and the other records were agr