http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CHARAN SINGH  AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BABULAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1966

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1967 AIR   57            1966 SCR  (3)  63  CITATOR INFO :  F          1974 SC 749  (9)

ACT: Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (5 of 1954), ss. 12  & 37-Modification of award by Civil Judge-If  Appealable under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act (10 of 1940).

HEADNOTE: During  consolidation  proceedings in a village,  under  the Uttar  Pradesh  Consolidation  of  Holdings  Act,  1954,   a question  of  title  arose, and  the  Consolidation  Officer referred the question to the Civil Judge who referred it  to an  arbitrator  appointed  under  s. 37  of  the  Act.   The Arbitrator submitted his award to the Court.  The appellants filed  objections under s. 15 of the Arbitration Act,  1940, and  the Civil Judge modified the award.  On appeal  by  the respondents,  the  District Court held that the  appeal  was maintainable  and that the Civil Judge was not justified  in modifying the award.  A revision petition to the High  Court filed by the appellants was dismissed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that s. 39 of  the Arbitration  Act, which provides for appeals does not  apply to arbitrations under s. 37 of the U.P. Act. HELD:The  decision of the Civil Judge modifying,  the  award was appealable under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act. [67 A]. The effect of s. 37 of the U.P. Act read with ss. 46 and  47 of  the  Arbitration Act is, to apply ss. 15 and 39  of  the Arbitration  Act to the proceedings under the U.P. Act;  and under  s.  12(5) of the U.P. Act what is made final  is  the decision  of the arbitrator as it emerges after  appropriate proceedings,  under the provisions of the  Arbitration  Act. [65 G-H; 66 H]. Carju  Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farrukhabad, I.L.R. [1959].  1 All354  and  Sayed Ulla Khan v. The Temporary  Civil  Judge, Sultanpur, A.I.R. 1959 All 331, approved. Attar  Singh  v. State of u.p. [1959] Supp.  1  S.C.R.  928, explained.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1964. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated the  October 26, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court  in  Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. J.   P.  Goyal, for the appellants. O.   P. Rana, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  J. This appeal by special leave is directed  against the  judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No.  1209  of 1957.  The 64 learned  Judge,  following  Sarju  Prasad  v.  Civil  Judge, Farrukhabad(1)  held  that  an  order of  the  Court  on  an objection against an award made under S. 12(4) of the  Uttar Pradesh  Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of  1954) (hereinafter  called the Act) was appealable under S. 39  of the  Arbitration  Act (X of 1940) Mr. J. P.  Goyal,  learned Counsel  for the appellant urges that this decision  of  the Allahabad High Court is wrong. In  order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Goyal, it  is necessary  to  give  a few facts and set  out  the  relevant statutory  provisions, During consolidation  proceedings  in village  Dharaki-Garhi,  a  question of  title  arose.   The Consolidation  Officer,  acting under S. 12(4) of  the  Act, referred the question of title to the Civil Judge,  Aligarh, who referred the same to the arbitrator, Shri Vikram  Singh, who  had  been appointed under S. 37 of  the  Act.   Section 12(4) reads as under:               "12(4)  Where the objection filed  under  sub-               section  (1) involves a question of title  and               such question has not already been  determined               by   a  competent  Court,  the   Consolidation               Officer   shall   refer   the   question   for               determination   to  the  Civil  Judge   having               jurisdiction  who shall thereupon refer it  to               the Arbitrator."               Section 37 provides:               "37.  Arbitration-(1) Where any matter is,  by               or under this Act, directed to be referred  to               an    Arbitrator   for   determination,    the               Arbitrator  will  be appointed  by  the  State               Government  from amongst Civil Judicial  Offi-               cers or Assistant Collector of the I class  of               not less than five years’ standing and in  all               other respects the matter shall be  determined               in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the               Arbitration Act, 1940.               (2)   The  appointment of an Arbitrator  under               sub. section (1) may be made either  generally               or in respect of any particular case or  class               of  cases or in respect of any specified  area               or areas." The arbitrator gave his award on May 14, 1956, and submitted the same to the Civil Court for final decision.  On May  19, 1956,  Charan Singh, Dungar Singh, Maharaj Singh  and  Lajja Ram, appellants before us, filed objections before the Civil Judge,  Aligarh.   The Civil Judge, on  September  8,  1956, modified  the  award dated May 14, 1956.   Babu  Lal,  Mohar Singh  and  Ram Piyari filed an appeal before  the  District Judge against the order of the Civil Judge, dated  September 8, 1956.  Before the District Judge, a preliminary objection was raised. that no appeal lay (1)  I.L.R. [1959] 1 All. 354. 65 against  the order of the Civil Judge.  The  District  Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

overruled the objection.  On the merits, the District  Judge held that the Civil Judge was not justified, under s. 15  of the  Arbitration Act, in modifying the award merely  because he  disagreed with the finding.  He, therefore, allowed  the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge  modifying the award, and the award announced by Shri Vikram Singh  was accepted. Charan  Singh,  Maharaj Singh, Doonger Singh and  Lajja  Ram filed  a petition before the High Court under s. 115 of  the Civil   Procedure  Code.   As  stated  above,  Dhavan,   J., dismissed  the  petition on the ground that  an  appeal  lay under  s.  39 of the Arbitration Act.   This  Court  granted special leave and now the matter is before us. Mr. Goyal contends that s. 37 of the Act applies the  provi- sions  of  the Arbitration Act only as far as  procedure  is concerned,  and s. 39 of the Arbitration Act which  provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations referred to in s. 37  of the Act.  He relies strongly on s. 12(6) of  the  Act which  provides  that the decision of the  arbitrator  under sub-s.  (4)  shall  be final.  We have already  set  out  S. 12(4).  He, however, does not contend that the provisions of s.  15  of  the Arbitration Act do  not  apply  because  the appellants  had  apparently  applied  under  s.  15  of  the Arbitration  Act  to the Court to modify the award  made  by Vikram  Singh  and they had succeeded in  getting  an  order modifying the award in their favour. In  our opinion, the High Court arrived at the correct  con- clusion  in Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge,  Farrukhbad(1)  and Sayeed   Ullah  Khan  v.  The  Temporary  Civil   Judge   of Sultanpur.(2)  Section  12(4)  of the  Act  provides  for  a statutory arbitration and S. 37 of the Act provides for  the appointment  of an arbitrator by the State  Government.   It seems  to us that apart from the question of appointment  of the  arbitrator, in all other respects the  matter  referred to,  i.e. the question of title referred to under  s.  12(4) shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration  Act.  Section 37 of the Act does not  make  any distinction  between provisions like s. 39 and s. 15 of  the Arbitration Act.  Further, the effect of s. 46 and s. 47  of the  Arbitration  Act  is that all  the  provisions  of  the Arbitration Act except sub-section (1) of section 6, ss.  7, 12, 36 and 37, apply to arbitrations under the Consolidation of  Holdings Act.  Section 37 of the Act cannot be  held  as providing anything inconsistent with this.  In our  opinion, the  effect of s. 37 of the Act, read with ss. 46 and 47  of the Arbitration Act, is inter alia to apply ss. 15 and 39 of the Arbitration Act to the proceedings under the Act.  It is not necessary to rely (1) I.L.R. (1959) 1 All. 354. (2) I.L.R. (1959) 1 All. 331. 66 on  ff.  63  and 64 of the Uttar  Pradesh  Consolidation  of Holdings  Rules, 1954, but we may mention that they  proceed on  the basis that ss. 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration  Act apply to the arbitration proceedings under the Act. Mr.  Goyal then urges that this Court in the case  of  Attar Singh v. The State of U.P.(1) understood s. 37 of the Act to mean  that  it makes the Arbitration Act applicable  to  the proceedings before the arbitrator in the matter of procedure only.   It is true that at p. 935 of the judgment,  Wanchoo, J., observed:               "Further s. 12 provides that where there is  a               dispute as to title and such question has  not               already  been  determined  by  any   competent               Court, the Consolidation Officer has to  refer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             the  question for determination to  the  Civil               Judge  who  thereafter will refer  it  to  the               arbitrator.   The arbitrator then proceeds  in               the  manner  provided by r. 73  (sic  63)  and               gives  a  hearing  to the  parties  and  takes               evidence  both  oral  and  documentary  before               making  his award; and s. 37 of the Act  makes               the   Arbitration   Act  applicable   to   the               proceedings  before  the  arbitrator  in   the               matter of procedure." We  are unable to agree with Mr. Goyal that this passage  in any manner decides the point which is before us.  This Court in Attar Singh’s(1) case was concerned with the validity  of the  Act, and ground No. 2 which was urged before the  Court was:               "Sections  8, 9 and 10 read with s. 49 of  the               Act provide a procedure for the correction and               revision of revenue records for villages under               consolidation, which is vitally different from               that   applicable   to  villages   not   under               consolidation,     and    there    is     thus               discrimination  which offends art. 14  of  the               Constitution." In   dealing  with  this  ground,  Wanchoo,  J.,  made   the observations  which have been set out above.  There  was  no question there of considering the effect of ss. 46 and 47 of the  Arbitration  Act, or considering whether s. 39  of  the Arbitration  Act applies to arbitrations under s.  12(4)  of the Act. Mr. Goyal also laid a great deal of emphasis on s. 12(6)  of the  Act which provides that the decision of the  arbitrator under  sub-s. (4) shall be final.  In our opinion, s.  12(6) must be read with s. 37 of the Act, and if it is so read  it is  quite clear that what is made final is the  decision  of the arbitrator as it emerges after appropriate  proceedings, if  any,  have  been  taken  under  the  provisions  of  the Arbitration Act. (1)  [1959] Supp.  I SCR 928.                              67 In  the  result  we hold that the High  Court  is  right  in holding  that the decision of the Civil Judge modifying  the award  was  appealable under s. 39 of the  Arbitration  Act. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed, 68