The arbitrators cannot delegate their duty of valuing the disputed premises and allotting the same to a stranger, and the award must be signed by all the arbitrators.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Ram Taran Das and is directed against an order of Mr. B. P. Bakshi, learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, dated 5/10/1950.

( 2 ) THE appeal arises out of certain proceedings in arbitration which arose out of a dispute between the descendants of one Ram Jiban Das. The relationship of the parties is set forth in the following genealogical table.

( 3 ) IN consequence of disputes between the descendants of Ran Jiban Das there was an agreement to refer such disputes to the arbitration of five persons as arbitrators. The agreement is dated 25/7/1945. The arbitrators chosen by the parties were Rama Prosad Choudhury, Rai Saheb Haradhone Chandra, Khitindra Nath Rai Choudhury, Jitendra Nath Palit and Kanti Charan Pal. The arbitrators met together on several occasions and ultimately an award was made on 12/10/1948. The award was signed by four out of the five arbitrators; Kanti Charan Pal did not sign the award. On 18/10/1948, an application was made by Ram Taran Das under the provisions of Section 14, Arbitration Act, 1940, for calling upon the arbitrators to file the award. In pursuance of a direction by the Court one of the arbitrators Jitendra Nath Palit filed the award on 28/3/1949. On 7/4/1949, objections to the filing of the award were made by Gostha, opposite party No. 6 and Adhir, opposite party No. 7. Thereafter on 15/4/1950, the Court directed a notice of the filing of the award to be served on opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5. No notice of the filing of the award was directed to be served on opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7 or on the petitioner Ram Taran Das. After a contested hearing, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 5/10/1950, rejected the application filed by Ram Taran Das and refused to pass a decree in terms of the award. Being aggrieved by this order Ram Taran Das has appealed to this Court.

( 4 ) MR. Mitter, learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal, has pressed several grounds challenging the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the various points referred to in his judgment.

( 5 ) BEFORE I deal with these grounds it is necessary to state that the learned Subordinate Judge by his order has dealt with what seemed to him various defects in the filing of the award and in the proceedings before the arbitrators. The judgment, however, does not deal with the facts bearing on some of these points. We have, therefore, perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.

( 6 ) THE first ground which was raised by Mr. Mitter relates to the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the award was not filed according to law. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that the award was filed by a party. This view is entirely erroneous and is opposed to an entry in the Order Sheet which clearly shows that Jitendra Nath Palit, one of the arbitrators, filed the award.

( 7 ) THE next ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge found against the petitioner was that notice of the filing of the award was neither issued nor served on the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7.

( 8 ) UNDER Section 14 (2), Arbitration Act, a duty is cast on the Court to give notice of the filing of the award once the award is filed in Court. In the present case, the facts which I have recited above show that such a notice was issued only on opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 presumably because the petitioner Ram Taran Das had himself filed a petition in Court for a direction on the arbitrators to file their award, and opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7 had already appeared in Court and filed their objections. There is, therefore, no substance in the ground made by the learned Subordinate Judge that the award was not filed according to law because the notice of the filing of the award was not directed to be served or the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7.

( 9 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge was also of the opinion tha