Case: Charan Singh And Ors Vs. Babulal And Ors

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. The learned Judge, following Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge Farrukhabad, ILR (1959) 1 All 354: (AIR 1959 All 717  ), held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under S. 12 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation, of Holdings Act (U. P Act V of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act) was appealable under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940) Mr J. P. Goyal learned counsel for the appellant, urges that this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong (2) In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Goyal, it is necessary to give few facts and set out the relevant statutory provisions. During consolidation proceedings in village Dhara-ki-Garhi a question of title arose. The Consolidation Officer, acting, under S. 12 (4) of the Act, referred the question of title to the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who referred the same to the arbitrator, Shri Vikram Singh, who had been appointed under S. 37 of the Act.3. The arbitrator gave his award on May 14, 1956, and submitted the same to the Civil Court for final decision. On May 19, 1956, Charan Singh Dungar Singh, Maharaj Singh and Lajja Ram, appellants before us, filed objections before the Civil Judge, Aligarh. The Civil Judge, on September 8, 1956, modified the award, dated May 14, l956. Babu Lal. Mohar Singh and Ram Piyari filed an appeal before the District Judge against the order of the Civil Judge, dated September 8, 1956. Before the District Judge a preliminary objection was raised that no appeal lay against the order of the Civil Judge. The District Judge overruled the objection. On the merits, the District Judge held that the Civil Judge was not justified, under S 15 of the Arbitration Act, in modifying the award merely because he disagreed with the finding. He, therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge modifying the award and the award announced by Shri Vikram Singh was accepted.4. Charan Singh, Maharaj Singh, Doonger Singh and Lajja Ram filed a petition before the High Court under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. As stated above, Dhavan, T. dismissed the petition on the ground that an appeal lay under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act. This Court granted special leave and now the matter is before us.

Court's reasoning:
6. In our opinion, the High Court arrived at the correct conclusion in ILR (1959) 1 All 354: (AIR 19,59 AI1 717) and Sayeed Ullah Khan v Temporary Civil Judge of Sultanpur AIR 1959 All 330  . Section 12 (4) of the Act provides for a statutory arbitration and S. 37 of the Act provides for the appointment of an arbitrator by the State Government. It seems to us that apart from the question of appointment of the arbitrator, in all other respects the matter referred to, i.e., the question of title referred to under S. 12 (4), shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Section 37 of the Act does not make any distinction between provisions like S. 39 and S. 15 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the effect of S. 46 and S. 47 of the Arbitration Act is that all the provisions of the Arbitration Act except sub-s (1) of Section 6, Ss. 7. 12, 36 and 37, apply to arbitrations under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 37 of the Act cannot be held as providing anything inconsistent with this. In our opinion, the effect of S. 37 of the Act, read with Ss. 46 and 47 of the Arbitration Act, is inter alia to apply Ss 15 and 39 of the Arbitration Act to the proceedings under the Act. It is not necessary to rely on Rr. 63 and 64 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, l954 but we may mention that they proceed on the basis that Ss 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act apply to the arbitration proceedings under theour opinion, S. 12 (6) must be read with S. 37 of the Act, and if it is so read it is quite clear that what is made final is the decision of the arbitrator as it emerges after appropriate proceedings if any, have been taken under the provisions of the Arbitrationare unable to agree with Mr. Goyal that this passage in any manner decides the point which is before us.