Skip to content


K. Achutayya Vs. N.S. Thimmayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ228
AppellantK. Achutayya
RespondentN.S. Thimmayya and anr.
Cases Referred and George v. Vastian Soury I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....of the plaintiff. the defendant now objects that the district judge had no authority to go behind the decision of the munsif in setting aside the award - relying upon ganga prasad v. kura i.l.r. (1906) a. 408 and kalyan das v. pyare lal (1907) 4 a.l.j. 256.2. if these cases are intended to decide and do decide that on final appeal a district judge cannot enquire into and decide as to the propriety or otherwise of a decision of the munsif setting aside an award they are contrary to the decisions in abdul rahman v. yar muhammad i.l.r. (1881) a. 636; chattar singh v. lekhraj singh i.l.r. (1883) . a. 293; ambica dasia v. nadyar chand pal i.l.r. (1885) c. 172; mothooranath tewaree v. brindabun tewaree (1870) 14 w.r. 327; shyama charan pramanick v. prolhad durwani 8 c.w.n. 390; damodar v......
Judgment:

1. These cases depend upon the same question. The suit was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator made his award. The defendant applied under Section 521, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the award. The award was set aside by the Munsif. Afterwards the suit came on for decision on the merits and was determined by the Munsif in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge on appeal decided that the Munsif was wrong in setting aside the award and without going into the merits reversed the decree of the Munsif, and entered judgment in accordance with the award in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant now objects that the District Judge had no authority to go behind the decision of the Munsif in setting aside the award - relying upon Ganga Prasad v. Kura I.L.R. (1906) A. 408 and Kalyan Das v. Pyare Lal (1907) 4 A.L.J. 256.

2. If these cases are intended to decide and do decide that on final appeal a District Judge cannot enquire into and decide as to the propriety or otherwise of a decision of the Munsif setting aside an award they are contrary to the decisions in Abdul Rahman v. Yar Muhammad I.L.R. (1881) A. 636; Chattar Singh v. Lekhraj Singh I.L.R. (1883) . A. 293; Ambica Dasia v. Nadyar Chand Pal I.L.R. (1885) C. 172; Mothooranath Tewaree v. Brindabun Tewaree (1870) 14 W.R. 327; Shyama Charan Pramanick v. Prolhad Durwani 8 C.W.N. 390; Damodar v. Raghunath I.L.R. (1902) B. 551 and George v. Vastian Soury I.L.R. (1898) M. 202.

3. We prefer to follow these latter decisions which we think are right, and we dismiss these second appeals and revision petitions with costs.


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