1. This litigation is concerned with a share of the properly of one Sham Lal, deceased. He was the grandson of one Gumani Lal. Gumani had three sons, namely Munna Lal, Ajudhia Pershad and Badri rTath. Munna Lal had two sons, namely Gopal and Sheo Parshad. The present defendants-appellants are Jagan Nath and Balanand, the sons of Gopal. Sheo Parshad had. one son, namely, Kauleshar Parshad. Sham Lal died many years ago prior to the year 1860, leaving his widow Musammat Naraini him surviving. After his death disputes arose amongst the members of the family as to the division of his property, and Gopal instituted a suit in which he impleaded as defendants Musammat Naraini and the three sons of Badri Nath, namely Ganesh Parshad, Maheshar Parshad and Beni Parshad. In that suit Gopal claimed to be entitled to the entire property of Sham Lai, alleging that Badri Nath was a separated Hindu and not a member of the joint family, and that he and Sham Lal were joint. Cranesh Parshad, Maheshar Parshad and Beni Parshad, the sons of Badri Nath, on the contrary, contended that Badri Nath was joint with Sham Lal and Gopal, and he being joint they were entitled to a share in the property. Musammat Naraini claimed that her husband was separate and that she was, therefore, entitled to a widow's life estate in all his property. The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration and an award was made on the 2nd of July 1860. By this award, a half share of the property of Sham Lal was given to Gopal and his nephew Kauleshar Parshad, a fourth shard was given to the sons of Badri Kath, and as to the remaining fourth the award provided that Naraini should have the possession and enjoyment of it during her life, and that after her death that share should be divided equally between Gopal and Kauleshar on the one side and the sons of Badri Nath on the other. A decree was passed in the terms of the award on the 9th of July, 1830, that is nearly 50 years ago.
2. Musammat Naraini entered into possession and enjoyment of the one-fourth share in the property so awarded to her for life and continned in possession up to her death, which occurred about three years ago.
3. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by the grandsons and great-grandsons of Maheshar Prasad, who alone of the three sons of Badri Nath had children, Ganesh Parshad and Beni Parshad having died childless. They claim to be entitled to one-half of the one-fourth share which was given to Musammat Naraini, that is to one-eighth of the property of Sham Lal. The defendants-appellants resisted the claim alleging that they were no parties to, and were not bound by, the award and decree to which we have referred and that being the nearest reversionary heirs to Sham Lal living at the date of the death, of Musammat Naraini, they are entitled to the entire of the one-fourth share given to her by the award for her life.
4. It does not appear whether Jagannath and Balanand were living at the date of the award but we are inclined to think that they were not living at that date inasmuch as their names are nowhere mentioned either in the award, or in the decree which was passed upon if. Kauleshar Parshad, the nephew of Gopal, although he was no party to the arbitration proceedings, is mentioned in the award and in the decree, a share in the property being provided for him. This leads to the inference that neither Jagannath nor Balanand was alive in 1860. Assuming, however, that they were living on that date, their father Gopal as head of the family was in a position to submit to arbitration the disputes which had arisen between the members of the family in, regard to the estate of Sham Lal, and if he did so as head of the family, the award and decree passed upon it would be binding upon his sons. In Jagannath v. Mannu Lal 16 A. 231, a Bench of this Court laid down the rule that it was competent to the father of a joint Hindu family in his capacity of managing member of the, family to refer to arbitration the partition of the joint family property and the award made on such a reference, if in other respects valid, would be binding on the sons. If a father, the managing member of a joint Hindu family, is empowered in his capacity of managing member of the family to refer to arbitration the partition of the joint family property, he is equally, we think, entitled to refer to arbitration such a dispute as was raised by the members of the family, of which Sham Lal was a member. A decree, passed upon an award made upon such a reference to arbitration, would, we think, be binding upon his sons. It must, we think, be assumed that Gopal in the proceedings to which we have referred was acting as managing member and head of the family, and in this view the decision of the Court below that the award and decree passed upon it is binding upon the appellants Jagan Nath and Balanand is correct. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.