TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1952 (2) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to them, she purchased or obtained under the mortgages in her own right. Next, there were properties which belonged exclusively to her father and to which she succeeded as daughter. On Shanker Lal's death disputes arose between Shanker Lal's fathers brother's son Brijlal (the plaintiff's grandfather) and the defendants grandmother Mst. Mohan Dei. Brijlal claimed the entire estate by survivorship, his allegation being that Shanker Lal dies in a state of jointness with him and that all the properties were joint family properties. This dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was delivered. Under the Mst. Mohan Dei was given the suit properties as absolute owner and the rest of the estate then in dispute was given to Brijlal. A division was effected accordingly and ever since, that is to say from 21-12-1884, the date of the award, down to 26-3-1941, the date of the suit, each branch has been in separate and uninterrupted possession of the properties respectively allotted to it and each has been dealing with them as absolute owner. The defendants claim that the plaintiff are bound by this award and are in any event estopped. 4. The plaintiff lost in the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bode and thus the haveli shall remain a bad as heretofore, and in this way the deceased name will be perpetuated; and it is positive that, after the Musammat, this property shall devolve on her son, who will be the malik (owner) thereof, and later the descendant of this son will become the owner thereof." 10. We do not think these passages qualify the operative portion of the award and are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court who hold they do. In our opinion, the arbitrator was confused in his mind both as regards the facts as well as regards the law. His view of the law may have been wrong but the words used are, in our opinion, clear and, in the absence of anything which would unambiguously qualify them, we must interpret them in their usual sense. 11. Some cases were cited in which the word "malik", and in one case the words "malik mustaqil" were held to import a limited estate because of the qualifying circumstances. We think it would be pointless to the examine them because we are concerned here with the documents before us and even if it be conceded that the words which would ordinarily means one thing can be qualified by other words and circumstances a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trator that he had an immediate right to part of the estate. Mst. Mohan Dei, on the other hand, resisted this claim and contended that she was entitled to separate and exclusive possession, and in any event that she was entitled in absolute right to a part of the property. On the facts which now emerge it is evidence that Brijlal had no right and that this hopes of one day succeeding as reversioner were remote. Mst. Mohan Dei had a son Shri Kishan Das who was the next presumptive reversioner and as the boy was a goods deal younger than Brijlal Brijlal's chances were slim. Actually, the boy survived Brijlal by the nearly forty years. Brijlal died in 1889 or 1890 and the boy did not die till March. 1929. Had he lived another eight or nine months he would have succeeded and the plaintiffs would have been nowhere. Now this dispute, seriously pressed by both sides, was referred to arbitration. It is neither here nor there whether the award was valid. Whether the decision fell within the scope of the reference or whether it had any binding character in itself. Even if it was wholly invalid it was still open to the parties to say : Never mind whether the arbitrator was right or wrong,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the present contentions are correct. 16. It is true that in one sense a question of title is one of law and it is equally true that there can be no estoppel on a question of law must be grounded on facts and when Brijlal's conduct is analysed it will be found to entail an assertion by him that he admitted and recognised facts which would in law give Mst. Mohan Dei an absolute interest in the lands awarded to her. It was because of that the assertion of the fact, namely, his recognition, and admission of the existence of facts which would give Mst. Mohan Dei an absolute interest that she was induced to part with about one-third of the property to which Brijlal on a true estimate of the facts as now known had not right. There can be no doubt that she acted to her detriment and there can, we think, be equally no doubt that she was induced to do so on the faith of the Brijlal's statement and conduct which induced her to believe that he accepted all the implications of the award. But in any event, we are clear that Brijlal would have been estopped. The nature of the dispute and the description of its given in the award show that there was considerable doubt, and certainly muc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts which would in law give Mst. Mohan Dei an absolute estate; and further he allowed Mst. Mohan Dei to deal with the estate as her own, for she, on her part, also acted on the award and claimed absolute rights in the property assigned to her. She dealt with it. On that footing and gifted it in that right to her grandsons, the contesting defendant on 4th April, 1929. Mutation was effect and Kishan Lal raised no objection. We see then that the Brijlal retained possession of property to which he was not entitled for a period of five or six years from 1884 to 1889 or 1890 and induced Mst. Mohan Dei to part with it by representing that and accepted the award and her absolute title to the rest, and after him Kishan Lal and his brother between them enjoyed the benefit of it from 1889 or 1890 down to October 1929 when Mst. Mohan Dei died. That is for a further forty, years, and led Mst. Mohan Dei to believe that they also acknowledged her title to an absolute estate. We have no doubt that the time Kishan Lal was also estopped for the reason given above. Had he questioned the award and reopened the dispute Mst. Mohan Dei would at once have used and would then for forty years have obtai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ened out. Reliance in particular was placed upon page 308 of the latter ruling. In our opinion, that decision is to be distinguished. 23. In that case the reversion did not fall in till 1916. Long before that, namely in 1868 the next presumptive reversioners entered into a compromise where by the grandfather of one Jairam who figured in that case obtained a goods deal more than he would have been entitled to in the ordinary way. But for the compromise this grandfather would have got only one anna 12 gundas share whereas due to the compromise he got as much as 2 annas 4 gundas. The actual taking of possession was however referred under the compromise till the death of one Anandi Kuer. She died in the 1885 and on the at date Jairam was entitled to his grandfather share as both his father and grandfather were dead. Jairam accordingly reaped the benefit of the transaction. But it is to be observed that the extra benefit which he derived was only as to a 12 gundas share because he had an absolute and indefeasible right to 1 anna 12 gundas in any event in his own right under a title which did not spring from the compromise. 24. Jairam lost 1 anna 4 gundas to a creditor Munniram and out....