MALLIKA JEHAN BEGUM Vs. TARACHAND
LAWS(APH)-1963-12-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 03,1963

MALLIKA JEHAN BEGUM Appellant
VERSUS
TARACHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. - (1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of our learned brother, Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J., in C.M.A. No. 550 of 1959 in which he allowed the appeal with costs against respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed with costs as against the 3rd respondent.
(2.) The relevant facts are as follows: Tarachand, as sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 262 of 1958 in the Court of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for making an award dated 26th September, 1954, a rule of Court. There were three defendants in those proceedings. Of these, defendant 2 is the brother of defendant 1, and defendant 3 is the sister of defendants 1 and 2. The award had been passed by the sole arbitrator, Sri Girja Prassad Sanghi, who was a practising Advocate, under an agreement purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff as well as the three defendants appointing him as an arbitrator and Munhasir-Alaih. That agreement of arbitration was dated 17th September, 1954 and related to a promissory note which is said to have been executed by the first defendant on 2nd August, 1954 and contained an endorsement which purported to be signed by defendants a and 3 on the same day under which they stood surety for the first defendant. The promisee under the promissory note was the plaintiff Tarachand himself. In the award dated 26th September, 1954, the learned arbitrator set out the contentions of the various parties as contained in their statements and considered the various aspects and then decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive any kind of interest from the defendants from the date of the promissory note. He also made a direction in the award that the amount could be paid in instalments from out of the jagir commutation amounts which were being received periodically by the defendants. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 appeared in Court by Advocate.
(3.) On 19th October, 1954, a joint statement was filed purporting to have been signed by the three defendants. In it, they stated that the relevant contentions in the plaint were correct and that they had no objection to the relief prayed for in the plaint being granted and that the suit may be decreed accordingly. Subsequently, the first defendant got married on 4th March, 1956. Later on, on 31st August, 1956, the first defendant filed a written statement. This written statement was also signed by an Advocate who was different from the Advocate who had signed in the joint written statement which had been filed on 19th October, 1954. In this second written statement, she raised various contentions as follows : Upto the date of her marriage on 4th March, 1956, the first defendant was living with her brother, the 2nd defendant, and was totally under his influence. The 2nd defendant had made the. first defendant execute a power-of-attorney in favour of plaintiff. As the first defendant is a purdah lady and a helpless woman, the plaintiff obtained the signature of the first defendant on vakalatnamas, blank papers and stamp papers, making the first defendant believe that proceedings had to be adopted in the office of the Jagir Administrator, etc. With mala fide intention, the plaintiff used those papers and obtained the arbitration award without the knowledge of the first defendant and also engaged some pleader on behalf of the first defendant and got the consent written statement filed. " The plaintiff also brought this defendant (first defendant) as well as this defendant's minor sister Akhtar Jehan Begum (third defendant) into the Court and while suppressing the real fact that the plaintiff made misbelieve and got the written statements verified by this defendant (first defendant) unlawfully." The first defendant did not execute any promissory note. The contract of security was unlawful and void as the third defendant was a minor and proceedings regarding her guardianship were pending in Court. " According to the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act, the plaintiff ought to have approached the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board and not the arbitrator. Legally, the arbitrator had no power at all to adopt any proceedings or give an award, nor .this Court is competent to try this suit.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.