From a bare reference to the order dated 18 9 1943 passed by the High Court in companynection with the dispute relating to the award dated 29 8 1939, it shall appear that the High Court then clearly recorded a finding that the award was in respect of the pucca house only and did number companyer the area adjoining the said house, which had number been partitioned.
It appears that one Vishwanatha Upadhyaya died in the year 1936 leaving behind two sons, Badri Narain Upadhyaya and Raj Narain Upadhyaya.
On 29 8 1939, the arbitrator gave an award in respect of the partition of the house in question.
The defendant appellant resisted the suit for partition on the ground that even the land adjoining the pucca house had already been partitioned on the basis of the award aforesaid dated 29 8 1939.
Thereafter, the present suit was filed in the year 1963 by the plaintiff respondent for partition of the land adjoining the pucca house.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit of the respondent saying that the disputed area was companyered by the award aforesaid.
After remand, the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial companyrt.
The High Court has also dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant.
The dispute arose in respect of the residential house which was referred to an arbitrator.
However, on appeal being filed before the High Court, the award was directed to be made the rule of the companyrt.
It need number be pointed out that this finding of the High Court between the parties became final and binding on them.On application being filed on behalf of the defendant appellant, the said award was set aside.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant to a suit for partition.
However, on appeal being filed, the said judgment and decree was set aside with a direction to hear the matter afresh.
The appeal filed on behalf of the defendant appellant was dismissed.
