The High Court dismissed the second appeal.
The reference to arbitration is signed by Boor Singhs branch companysisting of his four sons, Karam Singh, Harnam Singh, Balbir Singh and Amrik Singh.
Amrik Singh being a minor, Harnam Singh has signed as the guardian of Amrik Singh.
Hence the present appeal has been filed before us by the branch of Balwant Singh s o Gurdit Singh against the branches of the other three brothers.
Harbans Singh was number a party to the reference.
In this suit, a reference was made to arbitration.
On 24th of October, 1967, the present suit for partition of Dewan Singhs property, being a house known as Haveli Dewan Singh Wali at Phagwara was filed by Harnam Singh and Amrik Singh, sons of Boor Singh along with the widow and daughter of Balbir Singh another son of Boor Singh against karam Singh another son of Boor Singh and the sons of Gurdit Singh, Kapoor Singh and Rattan Singh.
3 Karam Singh Harnam Singh Balbir Singh Amrik Singh Defendant No.
The first appeal from the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was dismissed.
In 1926, one of the sons of Dewan Singh, namely, Boor Singh filed a suit for partition in respect of the houses and mansion left by Dewan Singh including a house known as Haveli Dewan Singh Wali at Phagwara, in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Phagwara, Kapurthala State.
Gurdit Singh had also left behind another son Harbans Singh.
It further states The parties may be informed in writing accordingly as required by law and the file may be companysigned to the record room.
Boor Singh presumably was number alive by this time.
Harbans Singh, however, did number companytest the suit and claimed numbershare in the property in question.
It numberes that the arbitrator pronounced his award in the presence of the parties and it should have been got declared as a Rule of the Court.
The trial companyrt, however, decreed the suit.
2 in the present suit, has challenged the award or the decree.
4 Plaintiff Plaintiff Sarasti Devi Janak daughter widow Plaintiff Plaintiff Dewan Singh left behind four sons, Rattan Singh, Kapoor Singh, Boor Singh and Gurdit Singh.
Hence, the decree passed in the earlier suit cannot be disowned by the respondents original plaintiffs on the ground that Harbans Singh was number a party to the arbitration proceedings.
Inspite of service the plaintiff has number appeared.
The decree which has been passed in terms of the award is binding on them.
A decree in terms of this award was passed by the Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Phagwara, Kapurthala State, on 19 Paus 1987, that is to say, some time in the year 1930.
The order then proceeds to make the award a Rule of the Court.
This companytention was raised for the first time in second appeal before the High Court.2 Defendant No.
His brother Gurdit Singh, Kapoor Singh and Dalip Singh s o of his deceased brother Rattan Singh were all parties to this suit.
The Arbitrator proceeded with the reference and gave his award which was filed in companyrt.
The decree was passed as far back as in 1930.
Neither Harbans Singh number his son Shivjit Singh, who is defendant No.
In respect of the previous suit, what is produced before us is a companyy of the last order sheet of the Court of Lala Shiv Ram Das Saheb, Magistrate, First Class, Tehsil Phagwara, Kapurthala State.
It is next companytended by the original plaintiffs who are respondents here that the decree passed in the suit of 1926 is a nullity and can be ignored because numbernotice of the filing of the award in companyrt was served upon the parties.
The reference to arbitration is also signed by Boor Singh brother Kapoor Singh, Dalip Singh s o Boor Singhs brother Rattan Singh and Balwant Singh s o Boor Singhs brother Gurdit Singh, Gurdit Singh also presumably having passed away.
It was companytended before the trial companyrt by the defendants that the claim in this suit was barred by resjudicata in view of the decree passed in the partition suit filed in 1926.
It is submitted by the appellants that Harbans Singh was given in adoption to his maternal uncle and was, therefore, number interested in any property companying to the share of his natural father Gurdit Singh.
Sujata V. Manohar, J. Sujata V. Manohar, J. The property of one Dewan Singh, a companymon ancestor of the appellants and the respondents, is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal.
A genealogy table showing the relationship between the appellants and the respondents is given below Dewan Singh Rattan Singh Kapoor Singh Boor Singh Gurdit Singh Dalip singh Lakbhir Singh Harbans singh Balwant Singh Defendant No.
1 Defendant No.
1 Shivjit Singh Jasjit Singh Defendant No.
