Case: Payyavula Vengamma Vs. Payyavula Kesanna And Others

The plaintiff filed O.P. No. 15 of 1945 in the Court of the District Judge of Anantapur for setting aside an award on the ground inter alia of legal misconduct of the arbitrator. The trial Court set aside the award. The High Court on appeal reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff with the certificate of the High Court against that decisionOne P. Narayanappa died in 1927 leaving him surviving the plaintiff his widow, the defendant 1 his undivided brother, the defendant 2 a son of his another pre-deceased brother, and defendant 3 his son by his pre-deceased wife. The deceased had purported to make a will dated 1st May, 1927, under which he had made certain provision for her maintenance and residence. The plaintiff stayed with the family for some time but had to leave the family house owing to disputes which arose between her and the senior wife of defendant1. She lived with her mother for eleven years and ultimately filed a suit in forma pauperis O.S. No. 19 of 1943 in the Court of the District Judge of Anantapur, for maintenance, arrears of maintenance, residence and household utensils as also recovery of some jewels and clothes as her stridhanam properties. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff contending that sufficient arrangement had been made for her maintenance and residence under the will dated the 1st May, 1927, that she had accordingly been in possession and enjoyment of the property and that her claim was unsustainable. The defendants also denied her claim for jewels and clothesThe suit came on for hearing and final disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur. When the plaintiff was being examined as P.W. 1, in the suit on the 27th February, 1945, all the parties filed a petition under section 21 of the Arbitration Act agreeing to appoint Sri Konakondla Rayalla Govindappa Garu as the sole arbitrator for settling the disputes in the suit and to abide by his decision, and asking the Court to send the plaint, written statement and other records to the arbitrator for his decision. A reference to arbitration was accordingly made by the Court. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and on the 6th March, 1945, examined the plaintiff and got from her a statement which is Exhibit No. 4 in the record. He similarly examined the defendant 1 on the 10th March, 1945, and got from him the statement which is Exhibit No. 5 in the record. After obtaining the two statements, the arbitrator made and published his award on the 12th March, 1945. It was this award that was challenged by the plaintiff.

Court's reasoning:
7. The course of proceeding adopted by the arbitrator was obviously contrary to the principles of natural justiceThis contention is unsound. The arbitrator may be a most respectable man; but even so, his conduct cannot be reconciled to general principlesA Judge must not take upon himself to say, whether evidence improperly admitted had or had not an effect upon his mind. The award may have done perfect justice : but upon general principles it cannot be supported. Per Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor, inTo the same effect are the observations of Lord Justice Knight Bruce inIt is true that he states in his affidavit that he did not allow those explanations to influence him in his report upon the accounts, and I have no doubt he honestly intended this to be the case; but it is impossible to gauge the influence which such statements have upon the mindWe must hold, without meaning the least reflection on the arbitrator, that he was guilty of legal misconduct and that was sufficient to vitiate the award