TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the private award barred the partition suit or operated as a conclusive adjudication of the parties' rights after the Arbitration Act, 1940 came into force; (ii) Whether the suit was not maintainable because the award had not been filed under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940; (iii) Whether the findings concerning the properties in Schedules B and C were or unsupported by evidence.
Issue (i): Whether the private award barred the partition suit or operated as a conclusive adjudication of the parties' rights after the Arbitration Act, 1940 came into force.
Analysis: A valid private award may, in principle, conclude the matters submitted to arbitration, but under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 no suit lies on any ground touching the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, and the award cannot be treated as operative in the same manner as before unless dealt with under the Act. The validity of the award itself would necessarily arise if it were pleaded as a bar, and that question cannot be determined in such a suit. The earlier authorities relied on were therefore not treated as controlling under the new Act.
Conclusion: The award did not bar the suit as a conclusive defence on the facts of this case.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit was not maintainable because the award had not been filed under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Analysis: The plaint was read as one founded on the plaintiffs' original title and right to partition, with the reference to the award used only to show willingness to comply with its condition regarding Rs. 2,000. The cause of action was pleaded as arising from the subsequent refusal of partition, not from enforcement of the award. Since the relief sought was partition on the basis of title and not a decree enforcing the award, the absence of filing under section 14(2) did not defeat maintainability.
Conclusion: The suit was maintainable despite the award not being filed under section 14(2).
Issue (iii): Whether the findings concerning the properties in Schedules B and C were incorrect.
Analysis: The documentary evidence strongly supported the finding that the Schedule B property was family property and not the exclusive property of the widow; the recorded history, family accounts, contemporaneous correspondence, and the deed of surrender all pointed in that direction. As to Schedule C, the defence case of prior division was not consistent with the pleadings or the evidence, and the finding of the trial court was not seriously shaken.
Conclusion: The findings on Schedules B and C were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the decree for partition was affirmed with the necessary amendment to include Schedule D property.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, a private award cannot be used as an effective bar in a suit by treating its validity as established in that suit, and a partition suit founded on original title remains maintainable even when the plaint refers to an unfiled award only as a term of willingness or compromise.
TaxTMI 
