The main legal point established in the judgment is that the arbitration agreement and the award were found to be legal, valid, and binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract for specific performance.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. Both the First Appeals are heard together because the result of First Appeal No.1206 of 1971 is dependent on the result of First Appeal No.65 of 1967. The First Appeal No.65 of 1967 was filed by the original plaintiff, Tarkeshwar Dayal against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1967 passed by Sri Harishanker Prasad Choudhary, Additional Subordinate Judge 2nd Court, Patna in Title Suit No.58 of 1954/20 of 1965 whereby the learned court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration that the decree dated 13.02.1950 passed in Title Suit No.8 of 1950 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for partition of half share in the joint family properties. During the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff-appellant, Tarkeshwar Dayal died and has been substituted by his legal representatives.

2. The said plaintiff-appellant had filed First Appeal No.1206 of 1971 against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1971 passed by Sri Dipti Prasad Mukherjee, 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna in Title Suit No.115 of 1963/43 of 1970 whereby the learned court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for pre-emption and in the alternative, for specific performance of contract.

3. During the course of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties that if it is held that there had been no partition between the original plaintiff and original defendant no.1, then only the question of pre-emption will arise and, therefore, the result of this first suit is dependent on the result of the second suit giving rise to First Appeal No.1206 of 1971. In such circumstances, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties. The original defendant no.1, Chandeshwar Dayal also died during the pendency of the appeal and has been substituted by his legal representatives.

4. The original plaintiff, Tarkeshwar Dayal filed aforesaid Title Suit No.58 of 1954/20 of 1965 giving rise to First Appeal No.65 of 1967 for declaration that the decree dated 13.02.1950 passed in Title Suit No.8 of 1950 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for partition of the joint family properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-1(A) of the plaint, after adjudication of the aforesaid decree as null and void. The plaintiffs claimed the said relief alleging that Sri Shiveshwar Dayal, Advocate, father of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.4 died on 03.08.1932 leaving behind the suit property. At the time of death of their father, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 were minors. So, in Guardianship Case No.90 of 1932, Kameshwar Dayal, Advocate was appointed as guardian of the person and the property of both the minor sons and one minor sister also. In Guardianship Case No.30 of 1934, the defendant no.4, Sarswati Devi, mother of plaintiff and step mother of defendant no.1 was appointed as guardian of plaintiff and Lakshmi Devi. In the said guardianship case, the defendant no.1, Chandeshwar Dayal filed an application on 10.10.1947 stating that he has attained majority and then he obtained moveable and moneys from the step mother. On 01.02.1949, it was held by the District Judge that the mother of defendant no.4 had ceased to be the guardian of the plaintiff as one of the coparceners became major and karta of the family. Thereafter on 30.03.1949, the defendant no.4 who is mother of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff entered into registered agreement of arbitration with defendant no.1 in order to refer to arbitration, the claim of the defendant no.1 as well as the claim of the plaintiff over the joint family properties for partitioning the same. By this arbitration agreement, Hon’ble Justice B.P.Sinha who was subsequently became the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was appointed as sole arbitrator to divide the joint family property by metes and bounds. The award was give