Skip to content


S. Vaithianatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. S. Subramania Aiyar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Mad301; 78Ind.Cas.238
AppellantS. Vaithianatha Aiyar and anr.
RespondentS. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Cases ReferredSee Batoha Sahib v. Abdul Gunny
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115, schedule ii, para 14 (c) - arbitration--hindu law--partition--jeshtabhagam--extra sum allowed to one party--illegality--revision, whether lies. - .....and, therefore, under section, 14, clause (c), of the second schedule, civil procedure code, the award was illegal on the face of it. though he uses the word 'jeshtabhagam' in para. 5 of his award, we do not think the arbitrator was applying any rule of jeshtabhagam to the ease, for, if he was doing so, he would have given a half share to the plaintiff of all the properties and only a one-fourth share to each of his brothers. he has only allowed the eldest brother to take the whole of the sum of rs. 3,128 due to the family in consideration of his having looked after his brothers carefully for many years and by educating them enabled them to attain responsible positions in life. we do not think such an award can be said to be illegal. the lower court has accepted the award and passed a.....
Judgment:

1. It is suggested that in making the partition the arbitrator followed the now obsolete rule of Hindu Law giving the eldest brother an extra share as 'Jeshtabhagom', and, therefore, under section, 14, Clause (c), of the Second Schedule, Civil Procedure Code, the award was illegal on the face of it. Though he uses the word 'Jeshtabhagam' in para. 5 of his award, we do not think the arbitrator was applying any rule of Jeshtabhagam to the ease, for, if he was doing so, he would have given a half share to the plaintiff of all the properties and only a one-fourth share to each of his brothers. He has only allowed the eldest brother to take the whole of the sum of Rs. 3,128 due to the family in consideration of his having looked after his brothers carefully for many years and by educating them enabled them to attain responsible positions in life. We do not think such an award can be said to be illegal. The lower Court has accepted the award and passed a decree in terms of it, and, in the circumstances, it is doubtful, if a revision lies at all: See Batoha Sahib v. Abdul Gunny 21 Ind. Cas. 803 : 88 M. 266 : 14 M.L.T. 814 : 25 M.L.J. 607; (1914) M.W.N. 149. We decline to interfere and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with costs.


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