Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
UMAMAHESWARAM, J.
Samudrala Seetaramacharyulu
Versus
Samudrala Ranganayakamma
Appeal No. 631 of 1952 against decree of Sub. J., Amalapuram in O. S. No. 52 of 1950.
Decided On : 17-10-1957
MAINTENANCE - FIXATION - COMMISSIONER'S REPORT - AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY - VALIDITY - ARBITRATION ACT - REFERENCE TO THIRD PARTY - VALIDITY - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, S. 20 - ADMISSION - REFERENCE FOR INFORMATION.
Fact of the Case:
In a maintenance suit, the parties agreed to abide by the estimate of the yield of the joint family lands made by a commissioner appointed by the court. The commissioner submitted a report, and the court accepted it as conclusive and binding upon the parties. The defendants appealed against the decree, contending that the rate of maintenance fixed was high and excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement to abide by the commissioner's report was valid and binding upon the parties, even though the procedure adopted by the court was not contemplated or warranted by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The court also held that the commissioner's report was not invalid under the Arbitration Act or the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to abide by the commissioner's report was valid and binding upon the parties? 2. Whether the commissioner's report was invalid under the Arbitration Act or the Indian Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement to abide by the commissioner's report was valid and binding upon the parties, even though the procedure adopted by the court was not contemplated or warranted by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, because: a. The commissioner was an officer appointed by the court, and the parties' agreement to abide by his decision was tantamount to saying that they would abide by the decision of the court adopting that report. b. The parties had acquiesced in the appointment of the commissioner and accompanied him during the course of his inspection. c. The defendants had not filed any objections to the commissioner's report. 2. The court held that the commissioner's report was not invalid under the Arbitration Act or the Indian Evidence Act because: a. The reference to the commissioner was in accordance with the provisions of S. 21 of the Arbitration Act. b. The defendants had not filed any objections to the commissioner's report or award. c. The information referred to in S. 20 of the Indian Evidence Act may be gathered by inspection of the lands or by other means, and it is not necessary that it be information specially within the knowledge of the person referred to.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs of the 1st respondent, except for the modifications referred to in the judgment.
2. Sri P. V. Vallabhacharyulu, the learned Advocate for the appellants, contended that the Subordinate Judge ought not to have acted on the report of the Commissioner Sri B. Prakasam for fixing the net income derived from the lands belonging to the joint family. In order to appreciate his argument, it is necessary to set out a few facts leading to the appointment of Sri B. Prakasam as a Commissioner.
Immediately after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff, respondent herein, applied for the appointment of a commissioner to estimate the value of the crops standing on the various lands so as to arrive at an estimate of the net income. The petition was allowed and an Advocate Sri G. V. S. Prakasa Bao was appointed as a Commissioner. He submitted a report and both the parties being dissatisfied with the report filed objections thereto. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and D. W. 1 was examined for the defendants. As to what happened at that stage is set out by the Subordinate Judge in the following terms : "At that stage, it was suggested that the best way of getting correct estimate of the income of the lands is to suggest the name of any senior member of the Bar in whom both sides have confidence so that he may be sent to inspect the lands and make a report about the yield. It was also suggested that if any such senior member is to be sent with the consent of both sides, the report to be filed by him must be the last word in the matter so far as the yield on the family lands is concerned.
This had to be suggested because both sides filed objections to the report of the first commissioner and each party was taking his evidence to one extremity. In suits where the sole question for determination is about the nature of the lands and the net income to be derived from them and where witnesses on each side are taking a swing to the extremity of the side that they have come to support, one will be compelled to take an average, which may after all be not a correct figure.
When this was explained to both the parties, they readily agreed to the suggestion and suggested that Sri B. Prakasam, one of the senior most members of the Bar, who himself is possessed of paddy growing lands and cocoa-nut gardens, may be appointed as the Commissioner to appraise the yield on the suit lands and both parties filed a memo saying that they would abide by the Commissioners report, so far as the net yield is concerned. Though it is undesirable to appoint a Commissioner, where there is already the report of one, it is under the above circumstances that the need for the appointment of a second commissioner was felt. He inspected all the lands in the presence of both parties and made a detailed report of the gross as well as the net income from the paddy growing lands as well as the coconut gardens". Sri Vallabhacharyulu, the learned Advocate for the appellants contended that on account of the pressure exercised by the Subordinate Judge, their advocate signed the memo and agreed to the appointment of a second commissioner. Though the appointment of a second commissioner is attacked on various legal grounds, no ground of appeal has been raised that the Subordinate Judge compelled the advocates to agree to the appointment of a second Commissioner. No affidavit has been filed by the advocate who appeared for the defendants making any such allegations. It appears from the records that the inspection by Sri. B. Prakasam was made in the presence of the defendants and that no objections to his report were filed by them.
While I agr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
