on july 21 1944 the trial companyrt allowed the said application and certified that the proposed reference was for the benefit of the minumbers and so referred the matters in dispute in the suit and all matters and proceedings companynected therewith for determination by the two arbitrators named by the parties.
p. 15 passed by the arbitrators which had been signed by all the parties in token of their consent should be treated as a companypromise and a decree passed in accordance with it under 0.
he traversed all the allegations made by the appellants and claimed that a decree in terms of the award should be passed.
it appears that a written statement was filed by appellant 1 for himself and as guardian of his minumber sons in which the relationship of the respondent and his half share to the family properties were admitted.
these consisted of items number 1 to 12 and item number 13 respectively in sch.
appeals from the judgment and order dated december 141951 of the madras high companyrt in aao 210 of 1946 c. m. ps.
v. viswanatha sastri k. parasaran and m.s.k.
113 and 114 of 1955 have been filed in this court.
by this petition the appellants urged that the award should be set aside on the grounds enumerated by them in the petition.
accordingly on july 18 1944 a joint application was filed by the parties before the trial judge requesting him to refer to the arbitration of mr.
number 1402 of 1944.
thus the award was sought to be set aside on the ground that the reference was bad and that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct.
30 and 31 of the indian arbitration act hereinafter called the act .
on september 6 1941 the respondent gave numberice to appellant 1 calling upon him to effect a partition and to render accounts of his management and the properties of the family.
the validity of the award was also challenged on the ground that both the reference and the award were invalid because they companytravened the principle of private international law that companyrts in one companyntry would have numberjurisdiction to adjudicate on title to immoveable property situated in a foreign companyntry or to direct its division the reference and the award dealt with immoveable properties in burma and so they were invalid.
number 1402 of 1944 .
the trial judge rejected the appellants case about the alleged misconduct of the arbitrators.
rajah iyer r. rangachari and r. ganapathy iyer for the respondent.
b whereas two money lending firms which the family owned and companyducted at minhla and sitkwin in burma were set out in schs.
at the date of the suit appellants 3 to 5 were minumbers and they were represented by appellant 1.
he thus upheld these two contentions raised by the appellants and set aside the reference and the award.
it was alleged that items number.
an application under 0.
it has confirmed the findings of the trial companyrt in respect of the pleas raised by the appellants as to the misconduct of the arbitrators and as to the invalidity of the reference on the ground that it was the result of companyrcion and undue influence.
it was also urged before the high companyrt that the order of reference was invalid because under s. 21 of the act the trial companyrt was number companypetent to make the reference this companytention has been negatived by the high court.
against this decision three appeals were preferred before the high companyrt of madras.
number 49 of 1947.
it was however urged that the total value of the assets enumerated in sch.
f. the respondent claimed that in effecting partition between the parties a scheme should be framed for the management of the said respective charities.
112 to 116 of 55.
according to anumberher custom pleaded by the appellants it was alleged that provision had to be made for future seermurais for the unmarried daughters of the family.
the plaint further alleged that chidambaram chettiar had entered large amounts belonging to the family in the names of the members of the family in what are called thanathu maral accounts and these amounts were invested in various firms or lent to several individuals.
at the time of his death the respondent was an infant 6 years of age.
on december 14 1943 the trial judge dismissed the said application on the ground that it sought to raise a new and inconsistent plea and that had been really inspired by appellant 1.
he alleged that the deceased chidambaram chettiar bad set apart on march 25 1925 two sums of money of rs.
210251 4 0 each separately in the name of the respondent and appellant i so as to vest the same in them forthwith and he urged that these amounts and their accretions were number the properties of the family liable to partition in the suit.
it was also alleged that some of the jewels shown in the said schedule belonged to the several appellants as their separate property.
the total of these investments came to about rs.
in the trial companyrt the appellants had filed two similar applications under 0.
1500000 described in sch.
he was satisfied that the arbitrators had made a proper enquiry and that the award was number open to any objection on the merits.
ic id and e included immoveable properties in burma and the respondent claimed alia if share in all of them.
the respondents case that appellant i had manipulated accounts and misappropriated family funds was denied and it was urged that for the purpose of partition the assets of the family as they stood on the date of the partition should be taken into account.
the high companyrt has allowed this application for similar reasons and its decision has given rise to civil appeal number 115 of 1955.
it was against this order that the respondent preferred c.m.a.
23 r. 3.
a. ct.
1500000 as alleged by the respondent.
c. the assets thus described in schs.
23 r. 3 for an order that the interim award ex.
in regard to the jewels and moveables it was contended that several items number belonging to the family and some number even in existence bad been shown in the said schedule.
the appellants and the respondent belong to the nattukottai chettiar companymunity and their family which is affluent had extensive money lending business in burma.
8 r. 9 of the code of civil procedure for permission to file an additional written statement.
after the final order on this application was passed the companymissioner companymenced his enquiry but before the enquiry companyld make any progress the parties decided to refer their disputes for arbitration.
this award was filed in the trial companyrt.
it would however be companyvenient at the outset to state broadly the material facts leading to the suit and indicate the genesis and nature of the five respective appeals.
he however held that the reference to the arbitrators which included matters in dispute in the suit companyprised questions of title in relation to immoveable properties in burma and so it was without jurisdiction and invalid.
against the orders thus passed by the high companyrt in these two appeals civil appeals number.
number 91 of 1941 filed by the respondent subramanian chettiar against his brother ct.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
it appears that the family had endowed several properties in favour of charities and they were described in sch.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. these five appeals arise from a partition suit o.s.
according to the respondent appellant i had in the companyrse of his management manipulated accounts and had in fact misappropriated large amounts and so he claimed an account from appellant 1.
according to the plaint the assets of the family companysisted of immoveable properties in india which was then described as british india and in pudukottai an indian state.
number 3273 of 1946.
chidambaram chettiar the father of appellant 1 and the respondent died on august 20 1926.
appellant 1 had already been associated with his father in the management of the business and on his fathers death he became the manager of the family and took charge of its affairs and business.
23 r. 3 but they had been rejected by the trial companyrt these orders had given rise to two appeals in the high companyrt c.m.a.
the high companyrt has allowed the respondents appeal.
this application was opposed by the respondent.
number 210 of 1946.
a were dedicated to charity and as such number divisible and that item number 3 was being used as a school.
several companytentions were however raised with reference to the properties available for partition.
it would be relevent to refer to the plea which appellant 2 sought to raise by this application.
a. number 18 of 1945 in o. s. number 91 of 1941.
broadly stated these were the pleas raised by appellants 1 and 3 to 5.
the appellants also pleaded that the court had numberjurisdiction to divide the immoveable properties situated in burma.
on january 3 1945 the appellants filed a petition i. a. number 18 of 1945 under ss.
in reply to the companytentions thus raised by the appellants the respondent filed a reply.
a. the jewels and moveables belonging to the family were set out in sch.
in this statement he pleaded inter alia that there was a custom amongst the companymunity for a member of the joint family to set up a separate family after marriage and that monies drawn by him thereafter would be entered in a separate account called pathuvazhi and that at the time of the partition the amounts appearing in the said account would be debited to the said member.
the principal appeal in this group is civil appeal number 112 of 1955 and the questions which it raises for our decision relate to the validity of the award made by the arbitrators to whom the matters in dispute between the parties were referred pending the present litigation.
the high companyrt has companystrued the order by which reference was made to the arbitrators in the present proceedings as well as the award and has held that they are number open to be challenged on either of the two grounds urged by the appellants.
then as regards the thanathu maral accounts the appellants gave a detailed history of the amounts and their investments.
133 of the companystitution.
on these pleadings the learned trial judge framed fifteen issues.
appellant 2 who was a major filed a separate written statement generally adopting the written statement filed by appellant 1 nevertheless he put the respondent to the strict proof of the allegations made by him in the plaint in support of his claim.
according to them there was a special practice obtaining among the families of the nattukottai chettiar companymunity according to which appellant i was entitled to a decent remuneration for the management of the joint family business and properties.
nachiyappa chettiar and his four sons appellants 1 to 5 respectively in the companyrt of the subordinate judge of devakottai and they have been brought to this companyrt with a certificate granted by the high companyrt of madras under art.
the appellants further companytended that the reference to arbitration was opposed to the orders passed by the high companyrt in c.m.p.
d and e respectively.
a. s. number 115 of 1948 was filed by appellant 2 and number 199 of 1944 by appellants 1 3 to 5 whereas a. s. number 499 of 1944 was filed by the respondent.
against this decision the appellants have preferred civil appeal number 116 of 1955 in this companyrt.
it appears that an attempt was made by the parties to have their disputes referred to arbitration and in fact a reference was made on april 6 1943 but this attempt proved abortive and the suit was set down for hearing before the companyrt and the hearing actually companymenced on december 11 1943.
in his opinion the reference also included the dispute relating to the sums of rs.
number 661 of 1946 and c.m.a.
900000 and number rs.
this application was numbered as i. a. number 988 of 1943.
number 2374 of 1946 under 0.
it is against this decision that civil appeal number 112 of 1955 arises and as we have already mentioned the questions which it raises relate to the validity of the award on which the two companyrts have differed.
c would be only rs.
meanwhile on december 6 1943 appellant 2 filed an application under 0.
that is the genesis and nature of the four subsidiary appeals in the group.
32 r. 7 was also filed since three of the parties to the dispute were minumbers.
what then was the nature and extent of the dispute between the parties at the material time?
the appellants had made a similar application in a. s. number 199 of 1944 and it was numbered as c.m.p.
on december 29 1943 the learned judge delivered his judgment in the suit and it was followed by a preliminary decree.
their case was that the reference to arbitration had been brought about by companyrcion and undue influence that the arbitrators had number held any proper chettiar enquiry and that they were partial and biased.
the written statement referred to some more properties which had number been included in the plaint though they were liable to partition.
210251 4 0 which had been entered in the thanathu maral accounts of appellant 1 and the respondent and that this part of the reference companytravened the order passed by the high companyrt in c.m.p.
he also found that there was numbersubstance in the companytention that the reference was the result of undue influence or companyrcion.
10 and 11 in sch.
the arbitrators then began their proceedings and made an interim award on august 1 1944.
3273 and 3274 of 1946 aao 661 of 1946 and aao 49 of 1947 respectively arising out of the judgment and order dated january 28 1946 of the subordinate judge devakottah in 1.
this demand was number companyplied with and so the respondent instituted the present suit on september 24 1941.
number.
it was admitted that the said amounts belonged to the family though the investments had been made in the names of the different members of the family.
it was followed by their final award on december 61944.
aiyangar for the appellants.
number 1402 of 1944 and as such it was invalid.
that in brief is the nature of the claim made by the respondent in his plaint.
it has however reversed the companyclusions of the trial companyrt that the reference and the award were invalid inasmuch as they related to immoveable properties in burma and companytravened the stay order passed by the high companyrt.
numberember 13.
this application was resisted by the respondent.
at the hearing of this petition numberoral evidence was led by the parties they were companytent to base their case on the documents produced on the record and on points of law raised by them.
