Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 and Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 21-Res judicata-Arbitration award, during penlency of appeal, accepted by parties and incorporated into appellate decree-Award, not relating to exclusive land of any particular individual but relating to Shamilat land of entire village-Award, held, cannot be regarded as conclusive on question of nature of disputed property-Hence, cannot operate as res judicata. The arbitration award accepted by the parties during the pendency of the appeal in the District Court did not relate to land which was the exclusive property of any particular individual, but merely to the Shamilat land of the entire village. The award cannot, therefore, be regarded as conclusive on the question of the nature of the property now in dispute, and cannot as such operate as res judicata. Even if it be considered that the award given by the arbitrator, and the consequent decree made by the Judicial Commissioner in the first suit between the parties, related to the entire Banjar land of the village, including the Khasra numbers in dispute, then it would have to be held that the award and the decree were not binding on the present petitioners to the extent that they traversed beyond the matter in difference between the parties in the suit concerned. The reference to arbitration, during the pendency of the appeal in the District Court, could only be in terms of section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 21-Reference to arbitra­tion-To be confined to subject matter of suit-Award and consequen­tial decree on matters not covered by suit-Void to that extent. The reference to arbitration has to be confined to the subject-matter of the suit, and any award on matters not covered by the suit would be void to that extent. The same remarks would apply to any consequential decree that might be passed by the Court in terms of such an award, for the simple reason that the Court would not be seized of the matters which were not put in controversy in the suit itself. Peddapalayam Bodachari v. Peddapalayam Muniaychari A I R 1921 Mad. 709; Parsram Gangadas v. Topandas Dholandas A I R 1928 Sind 81 and…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492