1914 (3) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arbitration award.
2. Allegations of procedural irregularities.
3. Allegations of corruption and misconduct by the arbitrator.
4. Distribution and valuation of the testator's property.
5. Inclusion of mortgaged property in the award.
6. Inclusion of a disputed house in the award.
7. Allocation of a sum of Rs. 4,000 based on a claim for rendition of accounts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Arbitration Award:
The appeal was from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow. The Subordinate Judge had refused to file the arbitration award, citing misconduct by the arbitrator. The Judicial Commissioner, however, upheld the award, finding no misconduct.

2. Allegations of Procedural Irregularities:
The appellant alleged that there had been no proper inquiry as the parties were not properly summoned and the appellant did not have an opportunity to present her case. The burden of proof was on the appellant, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. The arbitrator testified that he invited all parties to submit written statements and that no oral evidence was requested or tendered. The Judicial Commissioner found no procedural irregularities, agreeing with the arbitrator's testimony.

3. Allegations of Corruption and Misconduct by the Arbitrator:
The appellant alleged that the arbitrator acted corruptly and dishonestly. The Subordinate Judge had found these charges to be established based on the arbitrator's cross-examination. However, the Judicial Commissioner found that the cross-examination was not conducted properly, and the charges were not put directly to the arbitrator. The Judicial Commissioner concluded that there was no evidence of corruption or partiality.

4. Distribution and Valuation of the Testator's Property:
The arbitrator confirmed the appointment of respondent 1 as executor and allotted one-third of the property to him. The remaining property was divided according to Mahommedan law. The appellant received a share valued at Rs. 30,879, plus an additional item worth Rs. 4,000. The Judicial Commissioner found that the distribution was fair and that any apparent advantage was in favor of the appellant.

5. Inclusion of Mortgaged Property in the Award:
The testator's property included a considerable mortgage of Rs. 20,000. The arbitrator decided that the debt should be a charge on the entire property and proportionately on all co-sharers. The Judicial Commissioner found that the arbitrator had considered the matter and provided a reasonable solution, and there was no evidence of misconduct.

6. Inclusion of a Disputed House in the Award:
The appellant claimed a house in Lucknow, which the arbitrator included in the award. The arbitrator found that the testator had a good title by adverse possession. The Judicial Commissioner found no evidence of dishonesty in the arbitrator's decision and noted that if the house was not the testator's property, its inclusion would not affect the true owner's title.

7. Allocation of a Sum of Rs. 4,000 Based on a Claim for Rendition of Accounts:
The arbitrator included a sum of Rs. 4,000 based on a claim against Ahmad Khan. The Judicial Commissioner found that this sum was not included in calculating the appellant's share of the property but was an additional item. The inclusion was intended to be in favor of the appellant, and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

Conclusion:
The Judicial Commissioner found no evidence of procedural irregularities, corruption, or misconduct by the arbitrator. The distribution and valuation of the property were fair and reasonable. The inclusion of the mortgaged property and the disputed house was justified, and the allocation of the Rs. 4,000 sum was not detrimental to the appellant. The Judicial Commissioner upheld the arbitration award, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.