RAM KRISHNA TARAFDAR Vs. NEMAI KRISHNA TARAFDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience as they arise out of several execution proceedings started by some of the co-sharers for enforcement of the final decree based on an Award given by the Arbitrators effecting partition of joint family properties.

(2.) The common case of all the parties briefly is that in or about 1945 a suit was filed by one Sunil Krishna Tarafdar one of the co-sharers against other co-sharers for partition of joint family properties including several businesses which was eventually referred to arbitration. On or about 16th April, 1951, the Arbitrators filed their Award effecting partition of all the properties including several businesses amongst five groups of co-sharers. On or about 22nd December, 1952, a final decree was passed in terms of the Award but it was actually drawn up, signed and sealed after about lapse of 16 years i.e. on or about 31-5-68. The material portion of relevant Award for the purpose of present cases thus confirmed by the final decree provided, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) Now, it appears from F. M. A. 331 of 1970 that in point of time the first application was made by the plaintiff Sunil Krishna Tarafdar on 24th July, 1968, praying for delivery of possession of the portion of premises No. 2, Andul Raj Road, marked Lot 'C' in the Award for effective demarcation of walls etc., and also for possession of this property and half share of business known as Bimal Bros., against all the defendants including defendants 4 and 5. This execution was opposed by defendants 4 and 5 by petition of objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code filed on 19th December, 1968. Their case substantially was that the plaintiff decree-holder was not entitled to get delivery of the part of the premises in their occupation without payment of owelty money of Rs. 8,300/-under the terms of the Award and further without closing the opening of the doors in the western wall of the corridors of the ground floor and the first floor with brickwork facing the lot marked 'B* in terms of the Award. The Executing Court below rejected the entire case of the defendants 4 and 5 and dismissed the petition on the view that the execution for delivery of possession of lot 'C' was maintainable. That is how in short the defendants 4 and 5 felt aggrieved and preferred the above appeal.