- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Charan Singh (Dead) Through His Legal Representatives And Others v. Babu Lal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
During consolidation proceedings in Village Dhara-ki-Garhi (Uttar Pradesh), a dispute regarding title arose. Pursuant to Section 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (“the Act”), the Consolidation Officer referred the question to the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who then referred it to an arbitrator, Shri Vikram Singh, appointed under Section 37 of the Act.
The arbitrator rendered an award on 14 May 1956 and forwarded it to the civil court. On 19 May 1956, Charan Singh, Dungar Singh, Maharaj Singh and Lajja Ram filed objections. On 8 September 1956, the Civil Judge modified the award under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Babu Lal, Mohar Singh and Ram Piyari appealed to the District Judge, who rejected a preliminary objection regarding maintainability and, on merits, reinstated the original arbitral award. The aggrieved parties sought revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Allahabad High Court. Dhavan, J., dismissed the revision, holding that an appeal lay under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an order of the Civil Judge on objections to an arbitral award made under Section 12(4) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is appealable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 37 of the U.P. Act incorporates only the procedural aspects of the Arbitration Act; therefore, Section 39 (which provides for appeals) is inapplicable.
- Section 12(6) of the U.P. Act declares the arbitrator’s decision “final,” allegedly excluding any appellate jurisdiction.
- Reliance placed on Attar Singh v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court purportedly treated Section 37 as confining the Arbitration Act’s application to procedure.
No detailed arguments from the respondents are recorded in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge of Farrukhabad, ILR (1959) 1 All 354 | Order on objections to an award under Section 12(4) is appealable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. | Approved as correctly stating the law; followed in upholding the High Court’s view. |
| Sayeed Ullah Khan v. Temporary Civil Judge of Sultanpur, AIR 1959 All 331 | Same principle as Sarju Prasad regarding appealability under Section 39. | Cited with approval to reinforce that Section 39 applies to awards under the U.P. Act. |
| Attar Singh v. State of U.P., (1959) Supp (1) SCR 928 | Considered the validity of the U.P. Act; contained an observation that Section 37 makes the Arbitration Act applicable “in the matter of procedure.” | Distinguished; Court held the earlier observation did not decide the present issue and did not negate the applicability of Section 39. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Sikri affirmed the High Court’s view through the following chain of reasoning:
- Plain meaning of Section 37: The provision states that, apart from the appointment of the arbitrator, “in all other respects” the matter shall be determined in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940, without carving out Section 39.
- Effect of Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration Act: These sections extend almost the entire Arbitration Act to statutory arbitrations, expressly excluding only Sections 6(1), 7, 12, 36 and 37. Section 39 is not in the excluded list; hence it applies.
- No dichotomy between Sections 15 and 39: If Section 15 (modification of award) can apply—as even the appellants accepted—there is no statutory basis to exclude Section 39.
- Construction of Section 12(6) (finality clause): The “final” nature of the arbitrator’s decision must be read subject to the Act as a whole, including appellate remedies conferred by Section 39; thus finality attaches only after the conclusion of such remedies.
- Distinguishing Attar Singh: The earlier case addressed the constitutional validity of the Act and did not examine Sections 46–47 of the Arbitration Act or the specific applicability of Section 39. Therefore, its procedural remark was not binding on the present question.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed that an appeal lies under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against an order of a Civil Judge dealing with objections to an award rendered under Section 12(4) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that statutory arbitrations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are fully subject to the appellate mechanism of the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the Act’s finality clause. This interpretation harmonises Section 12(6) with Sections 37, 46 and 47, and resolves earlier uncertainty on the scope of appellate jurisdiction.
Sikri, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. The learned Judge, following Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farrukhabad ILR (1959) 1 All 354 held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under Section 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P Act 5 of 1954) (hereinafter called “the Act”) was appealable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (10 of 1940). Mr J.P Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant, urges that this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong.
2. 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 Dhara-ki-Garhi, a question of title arose. The Consolidation Officer, acting under Section 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 Section 37 of the Act. Section 12(4) reads as under:
“12. (4) Where the objection filed under sub-section (1) involves a question of the 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 Officers or Assistant Collector of the First 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.”
3. 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 against the order of the Civil Judge. The District Judge overruled the objection. On the merits, the District Judge held that the Civil Judge was not justified, under Section 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.
4. Charan Singh, Maharaj Singh, Dunger Singh and Lajja Ram filed a petition before the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. As stated above, Dhavan, J., dismissed the petition on the ground that an appeal lay under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. This Court granted special leave and now the matter is before us.
5. Mr Goyal contends that Section 37 of the Act applies the provisions of the Arbitration Act only as far as procedure is concerned, and Section 39 of the Arbitration Act which provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations referred to in Section 37 of the Act. He relies strongly on Section 12(6) of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub-section (4) shall be final. We have already set out Section 12(4). He, however, does not contend that the provisions of Section 15 of the Arbitration Act do not apply because the appellants had apparently applied under Section 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.
6. In our opinion, the High Court arrived at the correct conclusion in Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farrukhabad ILR (1959) 1 All 354 and Sayeed Ullah Khan v. Temporary Civil Judge of Sultanpur AIR (1959) All 331. Section 12(4) of the Act provides for a statutory arbitration and Section 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 Section 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 Section 39 and Section 15 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the effect of Section 46 and Section 47 of the Arbitration Act is that all the provisions of the Arbitration Act except sub-section (1) of Section 6, Sections 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 Section 37 of the Act, read with Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration Act, is inter alia to apply Sections 15 and 39 of the Arbitration Act to the proceedings under the Act. It is not necessary to rely on Rules 63 and 64 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, but we may mention that they proceed on the basis that Sections 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act apply to the arbitration proceedings under the Act.
7. Mr Goyal then urges that this Court in the case of Attar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959) Supp (1) SCR 928 understood Section 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 Section 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 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 Rule 73 (sic 63) and gives a hearing to the parties and takes evidence both oral and documentary before making his award; and Section 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 case (1959) Supp (1) SCR 928 was concerned with the validity of the Act, and Ground 2 which was urged before the Court was:
“Sections 8, 9 and 10 read with Section 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 Article 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 Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration Act, or considering whether Section 39 of the Arbitration Act applies to arbitrations under Section 12(4) of the Act.
8. Mr Goyal also laid a great deal of emphasis on Section 12(6) of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub-section (4) shall be final. In our opinion, Section 12(6) must be read with Section 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.
9. 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 Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.
Alert