Those proceedings related to partition of property and a claim for maintenance allowance by Dulari Bahu.
30/ per mensem as maintenance allowance to Dulari Bahu.
2,000/ out of Rs.
The appellant and his brothers and mother on one side and respondents 4 and 5 on the other side thereupon appointed four arbitrators, as per agreement dated 8th April, 1955.
The amount of maintenance payable to Dulari Bahu was increased to Rs.
Out of the sale proceeds, Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 27, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Regarding the amount of maintenance allowance payable to Dulari Bahu, the award provided that Rs.
The award further provided that out of the amount of Rs.
The appellant and his brothers further claimed that they had deposited some amount with respondents 4 and 5.
Durgaprasad was made liable to pay the amount of Rs.
Some other grounds were also given but we are number companycerned with them.
3,000/ would be paid to the appellant and his brothers and Rs.
2,000/ to Durgaprasad on the death of Dulari Bahu.
12/ per mensem from the appellant and his brothers .
It was also provided that if the appellant and his brothers failed to pay the monthly allowance, Dulari Bahu would, be entitled to get the house sold.
3,000/ , Rs.
30/ payable to her was made, a charge on the house allotted to Durgaprasad.
1,000/ would be paid, to Pannalal and Rs.
In the result, the award was made a rule of the Court.
3,000/ were to be deposited in a bank on the companydition that the, amount of interest would be paid to Dulari Bahu but she would number be entitled to draw the principal amount.
An award was given in those proceedings and was made a rule of the Court on 13 12 1933.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
30/ per mensem in a suit brought by her and decided on 8 10 1949.
It was also held that the award was in excess of the arbitration agreement.
1,000/ to Pannalal.
According to the agreement, respondents 4 and 5 would have numberclaim in the houses purchased by them in Court auction and the arbitrators would make award in respect of the amounts to be paid by either of the parties as well as regarding the maintenance allowance payable to Durga Bahu and Sukhrani Bahu.
First Appeal No.60 of 1960.
After obtaining the sale certificate, respondents 4 and 5 took proceedings for obtaining possession of the houses but they were resisted by respondent No.
S. Khanduja and K. C. Dua, for respondent No.
The reference to arbitration as well as the award, according to the Additional District Judge did number amount to an adjustment and were,, therefore, invalid.
The arbitrators thereafter gave their award dated 20th October, 1956 wherein they made provision for the amounts payable to different parties.
Dulari Bahu on the other side.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the judgment of that Court whereby that Court in appeal set aside the order of the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dismissed the objections against an award and directed that the award be made a rule of the Court.
3,000/ out of the sale proceeds would be withdrawn from the Court and be deposited with Durgaprasad, respondent.
194 of 1967.
A charge was created of the maintenance allowance on the house which fell as a result of partition to the share of the appellant and respondents 1 to 3.
Naraindas, appellant is the brother of Vallabhdas and Durga prasad, respondents 1 and 2 and son of Smt.
The houses were purchased for Rs.
22,000/ by Sitaram and Laxminarain, respondents 4 and 5.
According to the award, Dulari Bahu was to get a maintenance allowance of Rs.
As the appellant and his brothers did number pay the maintenance allowance to Dulari Bahu, she, in execution of her claim for maintenance allowance, got their houses situated at Jabalpur sold by Court auction.
Learned Additional District Judge set aside the award on the ground that the award affected the, rights of Dulari Bahu and she had number been made a party to the arbitration agreement.
After the award had been put in Court, objections were filed against the award.
N. Anand and Kailash Mehta, for the appellant.
On Dulari Bahus death, Rs.
Sukhrani, respondent No.
There were, some arbitration proceedings in 1932 between the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 on one side and Pannalal and Smt.
