LexCHARAN SINGH AND ORS. versus BABULAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
CHARAN SINGH AND ORS.
v.
BABULAL AND ORS.
March 25, 1966
(K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (5 of 1954), ss. 12
& 37-Modification of award by Civil Judge-If Appealable under s.
39 of the Arbitration Act (10 of 1940).
During consolidation proceedings in a village, under the Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, a question of title
arose, and the Consolidation Officer referred the question to the
Civil Judge who referred it to an arbitrator appointed under s.
37
of the Act. The Arbitrator submitted his award to the Court. The ap-
pellants filed objections under s. 15 of the Arbitration Act,
1940,
and the Civil Judge modified the award. On appeal by the respon-
dents, the District Court held that the appeal was maintainable and
that the Civil Judge was not justified in modifying the award. A
revision petition to the High Court filed by the appellants was dis-
missed.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that s. 39 of the Arbi-
tration Act, which provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations
under s. 37 of the U.P. Act.
HELD: The decision of the Civil Judge modifying, the\
award
was appealaple under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act. r67 Al
The effect of s. 37 of the U.P. Act read with ss. 46 and 47 of tha
Arbitration Act is, to apply ss. 15 and 39 of the Arbitration Act to the
proceedings under the U.P. Act; and under s. 12(5) of the U.P. Act
what is made final is the decision of the arbitrator as it emerges
after oppropriate proceedings, under the provisions of the Arbitra-
tion Act. r65 G-H; 66 Hl.
Carju Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farmkhabad, I.L.R. rrn591 1 All-
354 and Sayed Ulla Khan v. The Temporary Civil Judge, Su.ltan-
pur, A.LR. 1959 All 331, approved.
Attar Singh v. State oj U.P. [1959] Supp, 1 S.C.R. 928, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 76 of
1964 .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
the October 26, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revi-
sion No. 1209 of 1957.
J. P. Goyal, for the appellants.
0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. The
SUPl\El>IE COUJIT REPORTS
(1966) BL-PP, 11.c.ii.
learned Judge, following Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farrukha-
bad(') held that an order of the Court on an objection against an
award made under s. 12(4) uf the Cttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of 1954!
(hereinafter called the Act)
was appealable under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
Mr. J. P. Goyal, learn.:d counsel for the appellant urges that
this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong.
In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Goyal, it is
necessary to give a kw facts and set out the relevant statutory
provisions.
During consolidation proceedings in village Ohara·
ki-Garhi, a question of title arose.
The Consolidation Officer,
acting under s. 12(4) of the Act, referred the question of title to
the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who referred the same to the arbitrator,
Shri Vikram Singh, who had been appointed under s. 37 of the
Act. Section 12(4) reads as under:
"12(4) Where the objection filed under sub-section
{1) involves a question of title and such question has not
already been determined by a competent Court, the Con-
A
B
solidation Officer shall refer the question for determina-
D
lion to the Civil Judge having jurisdiction who shall
thereupon refer it to the Arbitrator."
Section 37 provides:
"37. Arbitration-{!) Where any matter is, by or
under this Act, directed to be referred to an Arbitrator
for determination. the Arbitrator will be appointed by
the State Government from amongst Civil Judicial Offi-
cers or Assistant Collector of the I class of not less than
five years' standing and in all other respects the matter
shall be deterrn;ned in accordance with the provisions
of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
E
(2) The appointment of an Arbitrator under sub-
F
section {!) may be made either generally or in respect of
any particular case or class of cases or in respect o( any
specified area or areas."
The arbitrator gave his award on May 14, 1956, and sub-
mitted the same to the Civil Court for final decision.
On May
O
19, 1956, Charan Singh. Dungar Singh, Maharaj Singh and Lajja
Ram, appellants beforExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.