These were heard and disposed of by a companymon judgment dated January 29, 1957 which directed the dismissal of the appeals and thereafter they applied for and obtained special leave of this companyrt and in pursuance thereof the present appeal which is a companysolidated one against the judgment in the two appeals in the High Court has been filed.
This was followed by a Schedule in which the joint properties were specified and to this document all the family members affixed their signatures.
There was also a provision that in regard to a glass factory the 2nd appellant was to have a 5 annas share, the rest of the member dividing the balance of the II annas presumably because the 1st appellants money went in for the initial capital for starting the companycern till certain specified companytingencies occurred.
The appellants preferred two appeals one from the order refusing to set aside the award and the other from the decree in terms thereof.
This was amplified in a statement filed before the arbitrator on February 12, 1955 by the 1st appellant.
122 and 156 of 1956 respectively.
Appeal by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated January 29, 30, 1957 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Orders Nos.
It is the validity of this award that is under challenge in these proceedings.
Before, however, the reference was submitted to the arbitrator, the respondents made an application to the High Court of Calcutta on its original side on July 12.,
The award was filed into Court on June 29, 1955, and thereupon the appellants made an appli cation for setting it aside on various grounds the principal of which was, as already indicated, that the award was incomplete, in that all the disputes which had been referred for arbitration had number been disposed of by it.
One Hemendra Nath Sen, father of the second appellant, died intestate in 1929 leaving his widow Premtarangini Debi and 8 sons.
The parties were governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. Pathak, A.N. Sinha and P.K. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the decision of a Single judge of that Court refusing to set aside the award of an arbitrator dated May 27, 1955.
Hemendra Nath left companysiderable properties and on his death disputes arose between his several heirs but an agreement dated January 31, 1933 these were settled By then one of the sons the husband of the 5th respondent had died leaving a widow the 5th respondent and these viz.,
V Vismanatha Sastri, B. R.L. lyengar and S. N. mukherjee for the respondents.
April 26.
the widow, the 7 sons and the widowed daughter in law entered into this agreement by which the properties left by the deceased were partitioned among them Broadly stated, the agreement specified the shares of the 9 parties thereto as equal i.e., one ninth each, with however the two widows being allotted their respective shares for their life as for their maintenance.
The application came on for hearing before a learned Single judge on the original side and it was dismissed on May 26, 1956, the learned judge directing a decree to be passed in terms of the award.
The 5th respondent is the widow of a deceased brother who died in 1933 while the 8th respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent.
197 of 1961.
Respondents 1,2,3, 4, 6 and 7 are the brothers of the 2nd appellant.
The 1st appellant is the wife of the 2nd appellant.
