RAGHO PRASAD GUPTA versus SRIKRISHNA PODDAR

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 23-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
RAGHO PRASAD GUPTA 
v. 
SRIKRISHNA PODDAR 
A11gust 23, 1968 
A 
[S. M. StKRl, R. 5. BACHAWAT AND K. 5. HEGDE, JJ.J 
B 
Hena111icl"r-:-l'any 10 agrce111cnI of refc1 cncc of dispute 
to 
arbitra-
no11-and in proceedings under s. 14. Arbitration Act, 1940--All con-
tentions open to re(I/ 01~·11er prc•sw·d hy 
ll<•na111irl~r·· -fl rrnl n11·ncr hound 
b.'· dcci'sion in thr proceedings. 
L obt~1incd a plot of lan<l in a scttlcn1c1H as the bcnan1i1.lir of the 
oppcllant ond the rcspond.:nt claimed the same land 011 the basi< of another 
scttlcn1ent. 
The respondent and L agreed 10 refer a dispulc 
about the 
O\\'ncrship of the land. to arhitration. 
After an a\11ard n1adc by the arbi-
trator \\'as filed in court under s. 14 of the lndi;111 
Arbitration 
Act, I. 
filed an application in the form of a \vrittcn statcn1cnt, \vhich \\'as verified 
and signed by the appellant, pr;1yinf! that the a\l.:ard be set J!)idc and 
the 
'>U!t 
dismissed. 
L died on .July I, 1955 
:-ind his hei:-'> 
\\'ere sL1hstituted 
in his 
place 
in the proceedings. 
They filed a further \Vrittcn stat(ment 
adopting L'' c;1rlier 
\\'rittcn 
statement 
and 
staling that the 
appellant 
,..,,as the rco.li ov..·ncr and a necessary party. 
The appellant then made an 
application to be joined M a defendant. but this was dismis-;cd by the 
:Munsif v.·ith an observation to the effect that only L and the respondent 
v.1erc p~1rties to the arbitration and the :1ppcllant had no /oc14s .Handi to 
be added a-; 
<.1 party; and furthermore, that any a\vard or dec'rcc in the 
matter \Vould not bind the appellant. 
Thercaflcr ohjcctions to !he ~l\vard 
were pressed by the heirs of L and the Mw1<if dismissed the suit and dec-
lined to pass a decree in terms of the J\\'ar<l. 
However. a first appeal by 
the rc~pondcnt was allowed and the Addition:tl Sub-Judr,c passed a decree 
in terms of the. award. 
In execution proceedings con1mcaccd by the respondent, an order v.'as 
1nadz for delivery of possession but as the appellant obstructed the cour\ 
peon in giving possession of the prope'rly. the respondent filed an appli· 
cation ag-Jinst the appcllont under Order 21 Ruic 97 C.P.C. 
This appli-
i::Jtion was dismissed by the 'tvfunsif on the vie\v that the appellant's prayer 
for being added J party in the earlier suit ha\'ing been rejected, he \Vas 
not bound hy the 
dccr~c passed 
a~ainst the hcnam;dar. 
However, the 
ltigh Court allo,ved the respondent's 
~evision 
petition 
under 
s. t 15 
(~.P.C. and dircclcd the executing court to deliver p0sc:cssion of the land 
to the respondent. 
On appeal to this Court by spcck1l leave. 
l-IELD : ~fhe appcJlant v.·as bound by the decree p~1ssc<l in the earher 
,uir and t!Y.: decree could he executed against h'm under 0. 21 
r. 
35 
C.PJ'.: he \\.'a<: therefore hound to vacate_ the- p'ropcrty. 
ll is \\·ell settled that in any lit.igation \viih a third p~irty, the bcnamidar 
c"n sufficicntlv represent the real owner. The decision in anv proce:odini; 
hrought hy or against the hcnamidar will bind the real owner though re I• 
Ol)l joined as a partv unless it is sho\VO that the. henamidar co.uh! t}Ot 
or 
did not in fact 
rcprci'.cnt the intL·rc<..t of 
the 
real 
O\\'ncr 
1n 
t~al 
prCICL•eding. fS~7 (:] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-
' . 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
·F 
G 
H 
R. P. GUPTA v. S. l'ODDAR (Bachawat, !.) 
835 
The question whether the respondent would be. bound by. the deeree 
was not in issue before the Munsif and the expressron of op1n1on on that 
question coulll operate as res judicata. 
o~ the facts, it :vas clear t~at _the 
non-joinder of the appellant as a party did not caus~ him any p~e1ud1ce. 
All the contentions which could be advanced on his behalf agamst the 
validity of the award \Vere put forward. by 
L'·s 
heirs 
and 
vigorously 
pressed. [837 HJ 
G11r Narayan v. Sheo Lal Singh, L.R.46 I.A. I; Prakash 
Chandra 
Ghosh v. Mahinw Ranjan Clwkrabarti, !.L.R. [1947] (2) 
Cal. 185; and 
Mata Prasad v. Ran1 Cltarafl St1/Ju; I.L.R. 36 All. 446: referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 17, 1963, of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision 
No. 287 of 1963. 
C. B. Agarn,ala and K. K. Sinha, for the appellant. 
M. C. Chag!a and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
One Lakhan Lal obtained from the Ramgarh 
Raj a settlement in respect of .08 acre of land in Plot No. 439, 
Khata No. 125

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.