AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is suggested that in making the partition the arbitrator followed the now obsolete rule of Hindu Law giving the eldest brother an extra share as
Jeshtabhagom"", and, therefore, under section, 14, Clause (c), of the Second Schedule, Civil Procedure Code, the award was illegal on the face of
it. Though he uses the word ""Jeshtabhagam"" in para. 5 of his award, we do not think the arbitrator was applying any rule of Jeshtabhagam to the
ease, for, if he was doing so, he would have given a half share to the plaintiff of all the properties and only a one-fourth share to each of his
brothers. He has only allowed the eldest brother to take the whole of the sum of Rs. 3,128 due to the family in consideration of his having looked
after his brothers carefully for many years and by educating them enabled them to attain responsible positions in life. We do not think such an
award can be said to be illegal. The lower Court has accepted the award and passed a decree in terms of it, and, in the circumstances, it is
doubtful, if a revision lies at all: See Batoha Sahib v. Abdul Gunny 21 Ind. Cas. 803 : 88 M. 266 : 14 M.L.T. 814 : 25 M.L.J. 607; (1914)
M.W.N. 149. We decline to interfere and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with costs.