Back
1912 Supreme(Mad) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Nanjappa
Versus
Nanjappa Rao
Decided On : 1 May, 1912
Private reference to arbitration in a pending suit followed by a lawful award is a lawful agreement, compromise, and adjustment under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Private Reference to Arbitration - Sections 375, 506, 523, 525 of the Civil Procedure Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the award, the authority of the arbitrators, and the application of Sections 375, 506, 523, and 525 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized the legality of private reference to arbitration and the enforceability of the award.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of properties against the rival claimant and the Court of Wards. The 1st defendant filed a petition under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code, representing that the suit had been adjusted or compromised through arbitration. The District Judge dismissed the petition and refused to file the award, leading to multiple appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the award to be legally valid and enforceable, emphasizing the legality of private reference to arbitration and the authority of the arbitrators. The objections to the award were deemed unsustainable, except for one matter that was amended. The court directed the filing of the award and decreed in terms of the amended award.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the award, the authority of the arbitrators, and the application of Sections 375, 506, 523, and 525 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that private reference to arbitration in a pending suit followed by a lawful award is a lawful agreement, compromise, and adjustment under Section 375. The court emphasized the legality of private reference to arbitration and the enforceability of the award.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, directed the filing of the award, and decreed in terms of the amended award. The respondents were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in one of the appeals.
1. These are threes connected appeals. The Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911 have been fully argued before us. The decision in C.M.A. No. 228 of 1910 naturally follows from the conclusions, we have arrived at in the two former Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911.
2. The facts are somewhat complicated; but for the purpose of our decision, might be shortly stated thus.
3. Nanja Rao as plaintiff brought Suit No. 9 of 1907 in the Salem Sub-Court for recovery of the impartible Palayapet of Berikai and its appurtenant moveable and immoveable properties against the rival claimant Puttusawmi and the Court of Wards who supported Puttusawmi. That suit afterwards became O.S. No. 2 of 1908 on the file of the District Court of Salem. Puttusawmi (the 1st defendant) was himself appointed as Receiver pending the disposal of this Suit No. 2 of 1908 Two sureties deposited Rs. 30,000 in Court as security for Puttusawmis proper management as Receiver.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff (Nanja Rao) the 1st defendant Puttusawmi and the plaintiffs 4 sons executed a Muchilika Exhhibit I, dated the 10th July 1908, in favour of thethen Tahsildar of Hosur and of four members of the Taluq Board Office in order tb enable them to settle all kinds of disputes " between the parties with referenee to " the Palayapet and properties which were the subject matter of the Suit No. 2 of 1908 then " pending in the Civil Court." The five arbitrators met in the house of the Deputy Collector (Mr. Bower) and gave their award Exhibit II on the 11th July 1908.
5. On the 1st September 1908 (within two months of the award) the 1st defendant Puttusawmi presented a petition under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code in Suit No. 2 of 1908, representing that by reason of the private reference to arbitration in July 1908 and the award thereon. The Suit No. 2 of 1908 had been adjusted or compromised. The 1st defendant prayed the Court to pass a decree in accordance with the adjustment or compromise evidenced by the reference and award (Exhibits I and II) so far as it related to the suit No. 2 of 1908 between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. This petition under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code was numbered as I.A. No. 71 of 1908.
6. As another string to his bow and simultaneously with the petition under Section 375, the 1st defendant (Puttusawmi) filed a petition against the plaintiff (Nanja Row) and his four sons under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Cods praying that the award (Exhibit II) might be filed in Court. This application was registered as an Independent Suit No. 23 of 1908 (between the first defendant in Suit No. 2 of 1908 as plaintiffs and the plaintiff in Suit No. 2 of 1908 Nanja Row and his sons as defendants). To avoid confusion, we might continue to style Puttusawmi as 1st defendant and Nanja Row as plaintiff though in Suit No. 23 of 1938 their positions are reversed and though Puttusawmi died after Suit No. 23 of 1908 was filed his legal representatives having been allowed to continue the litigations.
7. While the petition I.A. No. 71 of 1908 (under Section 375) was pending, sureties of the 1st defendant put in Petitions Nos. 45 and 77 of 1909 in March and April 1909 to be relieved of their obligations and for return of their deposit of Rs. 30,000
8. The learned District Judge dismissed the 1st defendants Petition No. 71 of 1908 (filed under Section 375) on the ground that the award did not constitute an "adjustment by legal agreement or compromise." He dismissed the 1st defendants suit No. 23 of 1908 and refused to file the award Exhibit II on the grounds:
9. That the award Exhibit II was not a reasoned judicial decision.
10. That the five arbitrators allowed the Deputy Collector (Mr. Bower) to be "the real President of the whole (arbitration) proceedings "and the co-operation of (Mr. Bower) without authority "is a material irregularity which nullified the award."
That the decision of the question of the allowances to be made to Nanja Row
