An arbitration award without court recognition lacks binding legal effect in partition disputes concerning jointly owned family properties under Hindu Law.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the partly confirming judgment.

2. The appellant in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant no.2 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1987 and the appellant no.1 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.06 of 1992.

The respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1987 and the respondent no.1 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.06 of 1992.

3. The Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1987 before the trial court and they were appellant nos.2 and 3 and Respondent nos.2 and 3 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.06 of 1992.

4. The suit of the plaintiff(K. Achuta Rao, respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for partition. The plaintiff and defendants belong to one family.

In order to have a clarity, the undisputed family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants as per to the pleadings of the parties is depicted hereunder:-

5. As per the above undisputed genealogical tree of the parties, K. Chandraya was their common ancestor. K. Chandraya died leaving behind his widow wife K. Ratnalamma(defendant no.3), two sons and two daughters, i.e., K. Ramachandra Rao(defendant no.1), K. Achuta(plaintiff), K. Ravanaamma(defendant no.4) and Patnuru Sitalaxmi (defendant no.5).

The defendant no.2(B. Pravabati) is the daughter of K. Ramachandra Rao(defendant no.1).

The suit land, i.e., Plot No.625/1099 an area A.0.105 decimals under Khata No.72 at Prasadraopetta, Jeypore described in schedule of the plaint is a house site.

6. According to the plaintiff’s case, he(plaintiff) and defendants are all Hindus and they were guided and governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law.

The suit properties along with other properties were the self-acquired properties of his father K. Chandraya. After the death of his father K. Chandraya, all the properties including the suit properties left by him devolved upon him(plaintiff) and defendant nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 simultaneously and said properties including the suit properties have become the joint properties of the plaintiff, defendant nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.

In the year 1968, due to some misunderstanding between him (plaintiff) and his mother(defendant no.3), his mother appointed some Arbitrators for distribution of their joint properties and the Arbitrators distributed their joint properties between them, but, he(plaintiff) did not agree with the same alleging that, the said award of the Arbitrators was the outcome of the influence. So, the so-called award of the Arbitrators could not become the rule of court. As such, the said award was not acted upon.

In the year 1976, the defendant no.1 K. Ramchandra Rao, (eldest brother of the plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Jeypore in respect of their joint and undivided properties situated in village Dangora, but, that suit was dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-inclusion of all the joint properties. To which, defendant no.1 challenged preferring an appeal vide T.A. No.16 of 1979. In the judgment and decree of the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.16 of 1979, the learned District Judge, Jeypore held that, the so-called award passed by the Arbitrators in the year 1968 was neither acted upon nor the same was the rule of court and dismissed to the said 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.16 of 1979 of the defendant no.1.

In spite of the dismissal of the suit as well as 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.16 of 1979 of the