HARNAM SINGH RULIA Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARNAM Singh appellant instituted a suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the user of his one-sixth share in the persian wheel of Barianwala well situated in village Manopore, of which the respondents were the other co-owners. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim and also took the plea that civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the issue regarding his share the Courts below found in favour of the plaintiff, but nonsuited him on the legal objection. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE respondents' case is that the suit was barred by the provisions of Rule 18, of the Rules framed under Section 43(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, No. 11 of 1912, as arbitration proceedings in respect of the matter were going on before the Registrar under the said rule. Proceedings for consolidation of holdings in this village were being carried out under the Co-operative Societies Act through the Village Consolidation Society. THE matter in question is said to be included in the reference made to the Registrar by a resolution of the Society dated 10th December, 1950, (copy Ex. D-l) and the proceedings to be still pending before the Registrar.

(3.) AS recently observed by Supreme Court in Hanskumar Kishan Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 947, the position in law is the same when the reference to arbitration is made not under agreement of parties but under provisions of a statute. The result of those provisions again is to withdraw the dispute from the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts and to refer it for the decision of a private Tribunal. That decision is an award, and stands on the same footing as an award made on a reference under agreement of parties. Statutory arbitration thus stands on the same footing and, in the absence of any specific provision, it takes the place and has the effect of a private arbitration agreement. Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, lays down: