Arbitrators cannot go beyond the precise questions submitted to them.

Das, J.

1. This application in revision is by the plaintiff and arises out of an arbitration matter. The point urged before me is that the arbitrators acted beyond the scopes of the reference made to them, and part of the award which they gave was upon a matter not referred to arbitration. The short facts are these. The petitioner before me instituted a suit in respect of plot No. 616, khata No. 130, which has an area of 13 kathas 10 dhurs only. The claim of the petitioner was that he had title to the land and was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant on 12-8-1950. The case of the defendant, who is opposite party be-fore me, was that he had good title to the land and was in possession of it for a long time. This dispute between the parties was referred to certain arbitrators by an order of reference to which both the parties had agreed. The arbitrators filed their award. In the award, the arbitrators found that the present petitioner had good title to the entire plot, and the land was in his possession till he was forcibly dispossessed on 12-8-1950.

Having found title and possession in favour of the petitioner, the arbitrators purported to decide that the petitioner should give 5 kathas out of the plot from the western side, on which the defendant had constructed a hut, and the defendant would pay Rs. 50.00 to the petitioner for those 5 kathas. In other words, the arbitrators, having found in favour of the petitioner on the question of title and possession, forced in effect a sale on the petitioner with regard to 5 kathas from the western part of the plot. The petitioner objected to that part of the award which related to the aforesaid sale of 5 Kathas, on the ground that that part of the award was upon a matter not referred to arbitration, and could be separated from the other part. The petitioner asked the Munsif to modify the award under the provisions of Sec.15, Arbitration Act, 1940 . The learned Munsif gave effect to the contention of the petitioner and confined the award to the dispute between the parties. He passed a decree in terms of the award as modified by him. The defendant took an appeal to the Court of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur.

The learned District Judge held that the award was valid in its entirety, and no part of it was beyond the scope of the reference made to the arbitrators. On that footing, he allowed the appeal and directed the passing of a decree in terms of the award.

2. It is against the order of the learned District Judge of Muzaffarpur that the present application in revision is directed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the arbitrators acted beyond the scope of the reference made to them when they forced in effect a sale on the petitioner. Learned Counsel has contended that that part of the award which related to 5 kathas out of the western portion of plot No. 616 was upon a matter not referred to the arbitrators, and the arbitrators acted ultra fines compromissi. In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsels for the petitioner is correct and should be accepted. What was referred to the arbitrators was a simple dispute between two parties. One of me parties said that he had title to the land and was in possession till he was forcibly dispossessed by the other party on 12-8-1950. The other party said that he had title to the land which has all along been in his possession. This was the dispute which was referred to the arbitrators. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the terms of the reference to the arbitrators. It is clear from the petition of the parties by which their dispute was referred to the arbitrators that what was referred to the arbitrators was the aforesaid simple dispute between the parties. It was specifically stated that whatever decision the arbitrators gave about the aforesaid dispute would be binding on the parties. The arbitrators decided the dispute wholly in favour of the petitioner. They found that the petitioners h