- (1.) THESE fevisional applications are as per Section 115 of the Civil procedure Code and are directed against judgment and decree dated 9. 4. 1990 passed in connection with Title Appeal No. 62 of 1986 by the learned Additional District Judge 1st Court, Howrah by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 202 of 1969 was affirmed. (Heard analogously with t. A. No. 61/1986 arising out of T. S. No. 76 of 1970 ).
(2.) THE fact leading to filing of the instant revisional application may be summed up thus:- (i) That the Opposite Parties brought a suit being Title Suit no. 202 of 1969 before the learned 4th Court of Munsif at Howrah against the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners sk. Rahamatullah for recovery of possession after evicting him along with other consequential relief. (ii) In the said case, the plaintiff took the plea that they were the owners of the Western portion of the disputed holding on the basis of purported Deed of Gift dated 28. 11. 1936. (iii) The plaintiffs further claimed accordingly, they were in possession of the property in question. The plaintiff also took the plea that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners and his brother were licensee with respect to Western portion of the said premises and in spite of revocation of licence, they did not vacate the premises in question for which the suit was filed. During pendency of the said suit, Rahmatullah died and his legal heirs were duly substituted. (iv) The said Sk. Rahmatullah brought a suit being T. S:no. 76 of 1970 against present Opposite Parties and against Noor Md. , mst. Mahenessa Bibi and Mst. Kurma @ Khasrunessa Bibi (v) That was suit for partition. (vi) Both the suits were tried analogously. (vii) During pendency of the said suits one joint petition was filed by the parties for referring the matter to the Arbitrators for settling the dispute. (viii) By order No. 288 dated 18. 8. 1975, 16 Arbitrators were appointed. (ix) One Ramdeo Ram was also appointed as Umpire however, the Arbitrators failed to come to a unanimous decision and there were two separate awards by two groups. (x) The present petitioners took the plea before the Court below that the Umpire did not enter on the reference and also did not make his award according to the provision of Indian Arbitration act, 1940 and only put his signature in the purported award signed by majority of the Arbitrators. (xi) The present petitioner took the specific plea that the said act of the Umpire is nothing but legal misconduct. (xii) The present petitioners also took the plea that as the learned Munsif appointed Ramdeo Ram as Umpire, the Court was not in a position to consider the alleged majority award without following the provision of the said Act of 1940. The present petitioners took the specific plea that the Umpire ought to have entered into the reference and make an award thereafter. (xiii) As such, the present petitioners filed objection before the learned Munsif challenging the award passed by the Majority members on the ground that same was vitiated being wholly without jurisdiction. In the said objection, the present petitioner also took the plea that the signature on the majority award by the Umpire did not automatically make the award of the Umpire as final and also took the plea that the said Ramdeo Ram who was appointed as umpire had no capacity or jurisdiction to put his signature as one of the Arbitrator. (xiv) The learned Munsif by a composite order dated 18. 12. 1986 over ruled the said objection and passed the decree in terms of the majority award.
(3.) IT is the specific case of the present petitioners that in effect, both the suits were decreed and the so called majority award was made part of the decree in both the suits.;