JUDGMENT

Jai Lal, J. - The following pedigree table will show the relationship of the parties:

Image

2. The parties being members of a joint Hindu family used to carry on coparcenary business in several places on an extensive scale and owned considerable property both immovable and moveable including cash, but as differences have arisen between them it was decided to effect a partition of the joint property and to separate; to what extent and in what manner separation was decided upon, however, is a matter that I will discuss presently as it is one of the questions that falls to be decided in this appeal. An agreement was consequently executed on 22nd December 1926 referring the question of partition to the arbitration of Lala Hazari Mal, a jeweller of Delhi. This agreement was signed by Lala Banarsi Das for himself and also as guardian of Jagan Nath and Krishan Kumar, his minor sons, and by Lala Banwari Lal and Harish Chander the major sons of Lala Banarsi Das, as the first party, and by Rai Sahib Lala Nanak Chand for himself and also as guardian of his minor sons Suraj Bhan, his brother Dina Nath, who was described to be deaf and dumb and also of Sri Nath and Hari Nath, minor sons of Lala Dina Nath, as the second party. By this agreement the arbitrator was given the power to "decide disputed points between the parties" and to effect actual partition of the joint property, but it was expressly agreed that "the shares of the first party and the second party shall be equal halves," that the expenses incurred before the death of Lala Ram Chand, father of Rai Sahib Lala Nanak Chand, of the second party shall not be open to objection, but with regard to the expenses incurred by any party after his death the arbitrator shall be competent to decide the question of their propriety or otherwise and to debit them in whole or in part to the party that incurred them. Clause 5 of the agreement is as follows:

The arbitrator shall effect settlement and partition after understanding the account relating to the business of all the firms. In this behalf he shall be fully competent to divide the assets and sell them and take other steps in connexion therewith and settle accounts.

3. Clause 8 is as follows:

The arbitrator shall also be competent not to wait for the complete partition, but go on effecting partition of the money and other property of every sort (that may be available for the purpose) from time to time and make over the same to the parties and award them possession and secure receipts.

4. Clause 12 read as follows:

Money and other property, partitioned, shall be separated property of each party and the parties shall be entitled to do separate business on their own responsibility with such money and property.

5. It was further provided that the award of the arbitrator shall be final and not subject to any dispute or objection by the parties and extensive powers were given to the arbitrator to order the parties to prepare accounts, etc. He was to settle all the points within six months but was permitted to extend the time by six months more.

6. In pursuance of this reference Lala Hazari Mal entered upon arbitration of the dispute referred to him and it appears that during the arbitration proceedings complaints and counter-com-plaints were made by each party as to misappropriation of the partnership property by the other. The consequence was that on 19th June 1927 they made the following statement before the arbitartor.

We, the parties of our own accord, make the following request. Before the completion, of the award the question of the expenses of the parties as given in para. 3 of the agreement for reference to arbitration may be decided and necessary credit and debit entries got made in the bahis provided that the money in btaka, mills, hundis, promissory notes, war bon is, promissory notes, gold and silver etc at Delhi and Kanohi are at the same time divided in two equal parts and the parties put in possession of their respective shares, and