LexPAYYAVULA VENGAMMA versus PAYYAVULA KESANNA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... •
-I
s.c . .R.
SiJPEEME COUR'l' REPORTS
119
any such plea we are of the opinion that there was
no answer to the plaintitf's claim and the permanent
lease granted by 'lv azir Narayan to the defeni{ants
could not prevail against the plaintiff.
We have therefore come to the conclusion that
Wazir Narayan Singh had no power to grant the per-
manent lease in question to the defendants, that the
same was not binding and operative against the
plaintiff, that the defendants nad ample opportunity
to redeem the mortgage if they so desired but d
1id not
choose to exercise their right of redemption, that the
execution sale of Gadi Sirampur including the four
villages in question was binding on them and that the
plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the four
villages of which the defendants were in wrongful
possession. The appeal is allowed. The decree passed
by the High Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit is set
aside and the decree passed by the trial court in fa-
vour of the plaintiff is restored with costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant : Ganpat Bai.
Agent for respondent No. 1: R. R. Biswas.
PAYYAVULA VENGAMMA
v.
PAYYA vur_JA KESANNA AND OTHERS
[MUK
0HERJEA, 0HANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
and BHAGWATI, JJ.]
Arbitration-Arbitrator taking statement from one party in the
absence of the other-Legal misconduct-TT alilhty of award-Ques-
tion of prejudice.
Where, in an arbitration under s. 21 of the Indian Arbitration
Act, the arbitrator took statements from each of the parties in the
absence of the other and made an award: Held, that it is one of
t.hi; ~lrirMntM'Y iwinciiplM 6f thA 9.dministro.tion of justice, whether
by courts or by arbitration by lawyers or merchants, that a party
~houlc1 not be allowed to use any means whatsoever to influence
1952
Raja
Kainakshyti
Narayan Singh
BahadZ<r
v.
Chohan Ram
and Another.
Bhagwati J.
1962
Oct. 29.
1952
Payyavnla
Venga11i1na
v.
Payyavula
Kesa:nna
·and Others.
120
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S
(1953)
the mind of the judge or arbitrator, 'vhich means are not known
to and capable of being met and resisted by the other party ; the
arbitrator \Vas accordingly guilty of. legal misconduct; and this
was sullicent to vitiate the award, irrespective of the fact \Vhether
this misconduct had caused prejudice to any one.
Hai·vey v .. Shelton (1844) 7 Beav. 455, Ganesh Narayan Singh
v. Nalirla Koer (1911) 13 Cal. hJ. 399, and Hoighv. Haigh (1861)
31 L.J. Oh. 420, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
37 of 1952.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the
\!4th September, 1948, of the High Court of Judica-
ture at Madras (Menon and Mack, JJ.) in A.A.O.Np.
688 of 1945 arising out of Judgment and Decree
dated the 1st October, 1945, of the Court of the Dist-
rict Judge of Anantapur in Original Petition No. 15
of 1945: ··
D. Munikanniah (J. B. Dadaohandji with him) for
the appellant.
S. P. Sinha (M, O. Chinnappa Reddi and K. R.
Chowdhiiry with him) for the respondents.
1952.
October 29. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
·
BHAGWATI J.-The plaintiff filed 0. P. No. 15 of
1945 in the Court of the District Judge of Anantapnr
for setting aside an award on the ground inter alia of
legal miscondnct of the arbitrator.
The trial Court
set aside the award.
The High Court on appeal
reversed the judgment of t·he trial Court and dismisi;ed
the plaintiff's suit. This appeal has been filed by the
plaintiff with the certificate of the High Court against
that decision.
One P. Narayanappa died in 1927 leaving· him
surviving the plaintiff his widow,"the defendant 1 his
undivided brother, the defendant 2 a son of his
another pre-deceased brother, and defendant 3 his son
by his pre-deceased wife. The deceased had purported
to make a will dated 1st May, 1927, un_der which he had ·
made certain provision for her maintenance and
i'esidence. · The plaintiff stayed with the family for
•
..
'
•
..
'
•
).
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
some time but had to leave the family house owing to
disputes which arose between her and the senior wife
of defendant 1. She lived with her mother for eleven
years and ultimately filed a suit in forma pauperis
0. S. No. 19 of 1943 in the Court of the District
Judge of Anantapur, for maintenance, arrears of
maintenance, residence and household utensils as also
recovery of some jewels and clothes as her stridhanam
properties.
The defeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.