( 1 ) THERE two appeals arise out of common order dated 14. 7. 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court deciding objections of the appellant to the execution of decree and thereby holding the Execution Application maintainable and consequently, directing the property in question to be put to sale by advertisement.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that properly No. 22, Ratendon Road, now known as 22 Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi including leasehold rights in the plot of land measuring 0. 91 acre was purchased jointly on 12-5-1955 by K. N. Khanna, the appellant and his late brother B. K. Khanna. Their divorced sister Mrs. Kamla Rathour and mother Mrs. Shama Khanna also lived in the properly in separate portions. On 6-2-1973 suit No. 59/73 was filed by Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) against K. N. Khanna and B. K. Khanna and the family Company, namely B. K. Khanna and Company Private Limited, who were guarantors to the loan advanced by IFCI to Shama Forge Limited, a Company promoted by B. K. Khanna and Company Private Limited. By an interim order passed on 6-2-1973 B. K. Khanna and K. N. Khanna were restrained from alienating amongst others the property in question. This interim order was confirmed on 26-2-1974.

( 3 ) ON 6-12-1976 suit No. 878/76 was filed by B. K. Khanna seeking partition of the properly. Kamla Rathour was also pleaded as one of the defendants to the suit. The suit was opposed by K. N. Khanna on various grounds. One of the grounds on which suit was resisted was that the properly was neither capable of division by metes and bounds, nor the property was partible. He also pleaded that the only way to partition the suit property was to put the same to sale by auction and to divide the sale proceeds in equal shares between him and his brother K. N. Khanna. During pendency of the partition suit, B. K. Khanna and K. N. Khanna agreed to refer their disputes for settlement to the sole arbitration of Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court and formerly the Solicitor General of India. Accordingly, an application under Section 21 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (IA 2020/78) was filed on 17-5-1978. By an order passed on 23-5-1978, subject matter of suit No. 878/76 namely, the dispute about partition of property No. 22, Ratendon Road, New Delhi and other matters and proceedings pending between the parties were REFERRED TO to the sole arbitration of Mr. C. K. Daphtary.

( 4 ) DURING arbitration proceedings, K. N. Khanna filed his claim on 2-10-1978 and prayed to the Arbitrator to inspect the property and then to examine the evidence and only thereafter to. make his award. It was stated by him that the property was not capable of being partition, without causing substantial damage to the interests of both the parties. According to him, proper thing would be to bring about sale of property No. 22, Ratendon Road, New Delhi so that sale proceeds are divided between him and B. K. Khanna. He also suggested that sale can be effected with consent of IFCI the basis of undertaking to be given by him and B. K. Khanna that the proceeds will be invested in some securities for satisfaction of the claim of IFCI, if any. In the application K. N. Khanna assigned various reasons due to which it was not at all possible to partition the property and pleaded that partition would substantially destroy its value. The property according to him was not capable of being physically partitioned in any reasonable or suitable manner and any effort to divide the property, if made, would lead to drastic results.

( 5 ) THE record suggests that the Arbitrator on request of K. N. Khanna inspected the suit property and also examined evidence produced by the parties. He accordingly proceeded to make his award on 27-11-1980. As per the award, the house was built for residence of a single family and is a ground floor structure and in his opinion was incapable of being reasonably divided into two halfs.

( 6 ) THE Arbitrator then pro