Skip to content


Gutte S/O Raghuvar Vs. Punnoo S/O Khachara Kachhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 54 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963MP96
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 32
AppellantGutte S/O Raghuvar
RespondentPunnoo S/O Khachara Kachhi
Advocates:T.N. Saxena, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredIn Lutufallah Khudabaksh v. Muhammad Sidik
Excerpt:
- - this award was signed by the panchas as well as the plaintiff and mangli. 3. the contention is well founded. it is a well settled principle of law that where parties to a dispute have pursued arbitration proceedings resulting in an award, none of them can after the award is made, get rid of it by ignoring it......and bars the present suit.4. there appears to be some controversy between parties as to whether mangli paid rs. 180/-to the plaintiff. the plaintiff says that he did not accept rs. 180/-, a sum mentioned in the award whereas the defendant says that this sum was paid to him. without expressing any opinion as to whether this amount was paid or not, i am of the opinion that an award is binding between the parties in all matters which it professes to decide, and the fact that the parties to the award had not carried out its terms is not sufficient to deprive the award of its effect.5. in lutufallah khudabaksh v. muhammad sidik, air 1946 sind 117, it has been held that an award operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced in the award and after the award is made, the award is the.....
Judgment:

A.H. Khan, J.

1. Plaintiff Punnoo filed a suit against Gutte, nephew of deceased Mangli for a declaration that he is the owner of disputed land and that Mangli, uncle of the defendant, was an influential person and so he got his name wrongly entered in revenue papers. The plaintiff also prayed for pssession. The trial Court decreed the suit and this decision was upheld in appeal.

2. The main defence was that although the fields were originally bought by the plaintiff Punnoo, yet at the time of purchase some fields were in the possession of Mangli, uncle of the defendant. The dispute about these fields was referred to a Panchayat by the parties. The Panchas gave an award which is Ex. D. 3, according to which the disputed fields having been already in possession of Mangli, were allowed to remain in his possession on payment of Rs. 180/-to Punnoo. This award was signed by the Panchas as well as the plaintiff and Mangli. Thereafter Mangli continued to be in possession of them and this suit has been brought after the death of Mangli. The plea of the defendant was that in view of Section 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, this suit was not maintainable.

3. The contention is well founded. It is a well settled principle of law that where parties to a dispute have pursued arbitration proceedings resulting in an award, none of them can after the award is made, get rid of it by ignoring it. Section 32 of the Arbitration Act embodies the principle and bars the present suit.

4. There appears to be some controversy between parties as to whether Mangli paid Rs. 180/-to the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that he did not accept Rs. 180/-, a sum mentioned in the award whereas the defendant says that this sum was paid to him. Without expressing any opinion as to whether this amount was paid or not, I am of the opinion that an award is binding between the parties in all matters which it professes to decide, and the fact that the parties to the award had not carried out its terms is not sufficient to deprive the award of its effect.

5. In Lutufallah Khudabaksh v. Muhammad Sidik, AIR 1946 Sind 117, it has been held that an award operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced in the award and after the award is made, the award is the only basis by which the rights of the parties can be determined and that the award bars an action on the original demand. I find myself in respectful agreement with the view. In the instant case the award (Ex. D. 3) has been admitted by the plaintiff and I have no hesitation in holding that the present suit is not maintainable.

6. Appeal allowed with costs throughout.The judgments and decrees of both the lowercourts are set aside and the plaintiff is nonsuited.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //