Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.-These two appeals are against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madhurai setting aside an award passed by the arbitrators in O.S.No.16 of 1946. O.S.No.16 of 1946 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties belonging to the estate of one deceased Mukkani Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. First plaintiff is the widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of one of the deceased sons of Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors and are represented by their mother, the first plaintiff. The first defendant is the widow of the propositus, the second defendant is the daughter and the third defendant is the surviving son of the said deceased Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. The rest of the defendants, defendants 4 to 10 are the heirs of another deceased son of the said Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. The three schedules attached to the plaint set out the immoveables, moveables and the outstandings respectively belonging to the deceased. The second defendant who is the daughter of the deceased claimed one item of the properties mentioned in schedule I to the plaint as her exclusive Stridhana property. The third defendant claimed items 1, 4 and 5 of Schedule I as his separate properties. Defendants 3 and 5 claimed several items of the first schedule as the separate properties of the third defendant and the son of the fifth defendant. There was also dispute between the parties in regard to the outstandings mentioned in the third schedule to the plaint. The plaint also set out the shares that each party was entitled to, but it must be stated that the shares so set out were not quite correct and not in accordance with the Muslim law governing the parties. On the pleadings, several issues were framed in the suit. The suit was posted for trial and after several adjournments, the parties wanted to settle their disputes outside the Court. Five persons were appointed as Panchayatdars by the parties and in February, 1947, all the parties executed a muchilika in favour of the said Panchayatdars, which is marked as Ex. D-1 in the suit, dated 17th February, 1947. Representations were made to the Court that the parties desired to have the matter settled through arbitration and then when the matter stood adjourned to the 29th March, 1947, the parties put in an application I.A.No.145 praying to the Court that the matter might be referred to the five Panchayatdars in whose favour the parties had already executed a muchilika. Thereupon, the learned Subordinate Judge referred the matter to the said five arbitrators and directed that the award should be returnable on the 15th April, 1947. After some extensions of time for the return of the award, the suit was posted to the 26th June, 1947, and on that day the award was filed by the arbitrators but it was signed only by four of them out of the five.

Defendants 2 and 3 who were not satisfied with the award filed I.A.Nos.209 of 1947 and 210 of 1947 respectively seeking to set aside the award on several grounds. All these grounds were gone into by the learned Subordinate Judge who has discussed them at great length in his order dated 27th October, 1947, and finally set aside the award upholding the contentions of defendants 2 and 3. It is against this common order in both the applications that these two appeals are now preferred.

Mr. Gopalaswami Aiyangar appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants has taken us through the plaint, the written statements and the affidavits filed by the respondents in these appeals and also through Exs. B-2, B-3, B-4, A-1 and D-1.

We have also read through the depositions of the witnesses that were examined in the lower Court on behalf of the respondents including the arbitrators. We do not think it is necessary for us to enter into any detailed discussion of every one of the points that have been raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Aiyangar in the course of his elaborate arguments before us. For

Click Here to Read the rest of this document