An award passed by an arbitrator but not made a rule of court is ineffective to affect the rights of the parties and cannot be used as a defence in a suit.

P. A. CHOUDARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against an order of the learned subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet passed in I. A. No. 2492 of 1982 in o. S. No. 22 of 1978 appointing a Receiver for the suit properties.

( 2 ) O. S. NO. 22 of 1978 has been filed by three respondents before us. They are, Y. Purnamma, Gurram Papamma and K. Kusumaharanathababa rani Kumari, who are all residents of Yedlapalli, Guntur Dis. riet. The suit was filed for declaration of their title and possession to the suit property. The suit was filed on the basis of a registered will, which was admittedly executed by one Katta Anjanoylu on 7. 5. 1981 bequeathing a life estate in the suit properties to the first and the 2nd plantiffs and the vested ramainder to the third plaintiff. Katta Anjaneylu appears to be a man of considerable property, but of no family happiness. During his lifetime he appears to have married thrice and engaged himself in several legal battles with his own daughter, the present appellant, V. Sanjeevamma During the lifetime of katta Anjaneylu, V. Sanjeevamma filed O. S. No. 86 of 1963 for recovery of possession of the immovable property of Acs. 10-60 cents together with past and future profits from her father and others. In O. S. No. 86 of 1963 sanjeevamma set up a case that the abovementioned Acs. 10 and odd of the land was given to her by way of an oral gift at the time of her marriage as pasupu Kunkuma. She complained to the court that her father did not fulfil his promice either by executing a document or delivering possession of the lame. Sanjeevamma, therefore, filed O. S. No. 86 of 1963. The suit was contested by Sanjeevamma s father Katta Anjaneylu who denied the fact that he ever made any such announcent expressing his intention to give the property as Patupu Kumkuma to the said Sanjeevamma at the time of her marriage. O. S. No. 86 of 1963 was dismissed by the trial court and also by this court in a. S. No. 256 of 1968 filed by the daughter Sanjeevama. In the judgment dated 7th April 1971 this court dismissed the appeal No. 256 of 1968 filed by the daughter Sanjeevamma against her father holding that in the absence of a registered conveyance no title could pass in favour of the daughter. After he won the appeal in A. S. 256 of 1968, filed by his daughter Sanjeevamma, the said Anjaneyulu filed O. S. No. 643 of 1973 on the file of the District munsif Court, Sattenapalli, for recovery of makta from his tenant. During the pendency of trial of that suit along with another suit filed by the said. Anjaneyulu in O. S. No. 129 of 1969 on the file of the same court for recovery of maktha due from his tenants, Anjaneyulu died on 30. 3. 1974. After the death of Anjaneyulu the question arose as to who should be brought on record as the legal representatives of Anjaneyulu. On theonehand the present plaintiffs in O. S. No 22 of 1978 claiming title to the property under the afore mentioned will dated 7. 5. 1971 sought to implead themselves as the legal representatives of late Anjaneyulu in the aforementioned two suits on the flie of the District Munsif s Court, Sattenapalli. On the other hand the above said sanjecvamma clamed to be the legal representative of Anjancyulu under an unregistered will dated 10-1-1973 allaged to have been executed by late Anjaneylu in her favour. While the aforesaid two suits for recovery of maktha were pending, the parties had agreed to refer their differences to an arbitrator, but the arbitrator instead of passing his award, went to the Subordinate judge s Court, Narasaraopct, seeking extension of time for giving his award. While his application seeking extension of time was still pending it appears that the arbitrator passed his award and even filed it in to the Subordinate judge s Court. The Subordinate Judge allowed the application of the arbitrator in I. A. N. 190 of 1975 seeking extension of time to file the award. But the present plaintiffs-respondents have filed O. P. No. 84 of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document