( 1 ) PLAINTIFF Punnoo filed a suit against Gutte, nephew of deceased Mangli for a declaration that he is the owner of disputed land and that Mangli, uncle of the defendant, was an influential person and so he got his name wrongly entered in revenue papers. The plaintiff also prayed for pssession. The trial Court decreed the suit and this decision was upheld in appeal.

( 2 ) THE main defence was that although the fields were originally bought by the plaintiff Punnoo, yet at the time of purchase some fields were in the possession of mangli, uncle of the defendant. The dispute about these fields was referred to a panchayat by the parties. The Panchas gave an award which is Ex. D. 3, according to which the disputed fields having been already in possession of Mangli, were allowed to remain in his possession on payment of Rs. 180/-to Punnoo. This award was signed by the Panchas as well as the plaintiff and Mangli. Thereafter Mangli continued to be in possession of them and this suit has been brought after the death of Mangli. The plea of the defendant was that in view of Section 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, this suit was not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE contention is well