Judgement

Appeal (No. 9 of 1921) from a decree (January 13, 1919) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces (Berar Jurisdiction) reversing a decree (December 22, 1917) of the second Additional District Judge of Amraoti.

The appeal arose out of an application made on Sep tember 25, 1907, by the principal respondents under s. 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, in the Court of the District Judge of East Berar at Amraoti, that he should file in Court an award made on April 22, 1907.

The facts of the case and the course of the proceedings in the Courts in India appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1923. Oct. 23, 25. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant.

Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Parikh for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

[Reference was made for the appellant to Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Ahmad Said Khan (( 1910) I.

L. R. 32 A. 503.) ; and for the respondents to Raghawendra Ayyaji v. Gururao Raghawendra (( 1913)

I. L. R. 37 B. 442.) and Budree Das Mukim v. Chooni Lal Johurry. (( 1906) I. L. R. 33 C. 789.)]

Dec. 10. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD PHILLIMORE. One Mahanand-ram Puranmal, many years ago, opened a shop in Hyderabad in the dominions of the Nizam and carried on a considerable business, which has been continued to this day by his descendants under his name as the name of the firm. He also founded two temples within the dominions of the Nizam, and a third in British India, not however—and this is important—within the District of Berar. Three jagir villages, one within the Nizam dominions and two within British India and the District of Berar, were subsequently granted by Government for the support of the worship in these temples.

Puranmal was succeeded by his son Premsukh, who had three sons, Ramgopal, Hargopal and Chimanram. The family, however, has remained undivided, and the business and landed property have remained in common.

Hargopal seems to have died before his father Premsukh; and on the death of the latter, Hargopals son, Ram Lal, the present appellant, took up the management of the temples, the three villages granted for their support and the family property and business, and his name was entered in the various registers accordingly.

In 1907 the representatives of the other two families brought a suit against Ram Lal claiming that they might be declared co-trustees of one of the temples and entitled to exercise control of the income and expenditure of the two jagir villages in Berar. The District Judge of East Berar, in whose Court the suit was brought, dismissed it, holding that he had no jurisdiction to try it. An appeal was threatened, and then the parties came together and agreed to refer all their disputes to the award of their family priest. He heard the parties, and finally on April 22, 1907, made his award, which was countersigned by all the parties to the dispute. It is a long document, comprising fifty-seven paragraphs, some narrative, some dispositive. He classified the disputes under four heads (1.) Relating to the management of the three jagir villages. (2.) To the management of the three religious institutions. (3.) The estate or family property descended from the ancestor Puranmal. (4.) " Monthly allowances and other miscellaneous matters." This last head included questions relating to a field bought by the son of Ram Lal, payment of arrears of allowances, and sums to be given for the expenses of marriages and funerals.

The general tenour of the award was the recognition of the equal rights of the three families and the institution of committees of three, comprising a representative of each family, giving in each case precedence to some one named member, making Ram Lal the principal or managing member of the committee for the jagir villages, and a representative of one of the other branches, managing member of the committee for the religious institutions and provisions of a similar nature with regard to the family property the effe