Radcliffe, J. - (1.)THE purpose of this appeal is to secure the setting aside of an interim award made on January 9, 1941, by Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, sitting as sole arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties to a partnership suit. An application by appellant No.1 to set aside, remit or modify the award was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta on March 7, 19-11, and on March 10, 1941, the same Court made a decree that the award should be carried into effect. An appeal was taken to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, and on May 28, 1946, that appeal was dismissed. It is from the judgment and orders made on that appeal that the present appeal reaches this Board.
(2.)IT is necessary to make some reference to the facts that led up to the arbitration in order to appreciate what it is of which the appellants complain. The arbitration concerned the affairs of a partnership business known as Hurdutroy Chamaria or Hurdutroy Chamaria & Co. The business seems to have been originally in the sole hands of Hurdutroy Chamaria, but at any rate by October 6, 1910, he had made a written agreement associating with him as a partner his nephew Ramprotap. Hurdutroy married three times, his third wife being Anardeyi Sethani, whose legal personal representative is respondent No.1, in this appeal. By her he had two sons, Radhakissen Chamaria, respondent No.8, and Motilal Chamaria, respondent No.4. The appellant Durga Prosad was an adopted son of Hurdutroy, the adoption having been effected during the period of Hurdutroy's lirst marriage. The appellant Keshardeo Chamaria is by birth a son of Durga Prosadbut became the adopted son of Araolakchand, Ramprotap's brother, by an adoption effected after Amolakchand's death by his widow Surji, respondent No.5.
The crucial year for the purpose of this narrative is the year 1916. On December 2 of that year Hurdutroy died. It is apparent from what has been said previously that the interesting Hurdutroy Chamaria& Co. was divided between his branch of the family and the branch represented by Ramprotap. It is also apparent that there were possibilities of diputes in his own family owing to the presence of an adopted elder son and two younger sons by his third marriage.

Three written agreements were made shortly before Hurdutroy's death in 1916. It is not necessary to give any details of their respective contents, but in order to understand the arbitrator's award and the objections made to it it is necessary to state what they were. On October 1, 1916, Hurdutroy and Ramprotap entered into a new partnership agreement, under which the partnership business was to be continued for 20 years from that date, an 11 anna share going to Hurdutroy and a 5 anna share to Ramprotap. On November 16, 1916, a memorandum, which has been referred to as "the family settlement", was signed by Anardeyi, and by Hurdutroy as father and guardian of Radhakissen and Motilal, both of whom were then minors. It was witnessed by Ramprotap and it contained certain terms defining the interests of Hurdutroy's family in his various properties, including his share in the partnership business of Hurdutroy Chamaria & Co. On the same day another memorandum was drawn up. This, which has been referred to as "the partnership arrangement," was signed by Ramprotap for himself and Surji, by Durga Prosad and by Hurdutroy as father and guardian of Radhakissen and Motilal. Its main purpose was evidently to specify the shares in the partnership business on and from January 1, 1917. The shares were set out in the usual division of 16 annas, but nothing was allotted to Anardeyi. It also contained the words "neither Rai Hardatrai Chamaria Bahadur nor his estate will have any interest in the said business of Hurdutroy Chamaria & Co. "

(3.)IT is the significance of this partnership arrangement and its true place in the intended dispositions of the members of these two families that have since proved one of the main subjects of dispute between them.
For disputes there certainly have been. Prior to the institution of the suit in which the arbitration took place (1840 of 1930), there were two partnership suits (120 of 1922 and 2472 of 1928) instituted by Ramprotap and Keshardeo respectively. There was also a suit (No.867 of 1924) instituted by Motilal to obtain partition of Hurdutroy's estate. For various reasons no final result seems to have emerged from any of these proceedings, but it is to be noted that in Motilals suit (No.367 of 1924), to which the appellant Durga Prosad was a party, a decree was made by consent that scheduled terms of settlement should be carried out, and that these terms contained undertakings to abide by the family settlement of 1916; while in Keshardco's suit (No.2472 of 1928), to which Durga Prosad, Radhakissen, Motilal and Surji were parties, a, decree was made by consent that terms of settlement defining the shares in the partnership business according to the partnership agreement of 1916 should be carried into effect.