JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - This is an application for the revision of an order of the Additional Munsif of Deoria giving a decree to the plaintiffs in terms of an award. The application is made on behalf of the plaintiffs and the award gives them a decree for Rs. 100. The circumstances are as follows. The plaintiffs who are four in number sued the defendants.-- (1) for possession of part of a house, (2) if this should fail for possession and 1 biswa odd in plot No. 77 and Rs. 200 damages, (3) possession of land in plot No. 78 after the demolition of the constructions made thereon by the defendants, and (4) Injunction. 2. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and their right to any relief. The matter was referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen, two of whom were counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively, and the third was an outsider. There was no written application for a reference to arbitration, but the order sheet shows that the parties and their vakils were present and some of them signed the order referring the case to the arbitrators. The order shows that the case was sent to the arbitrators for decision and that whatever decision the arbitrators arrived at after an enquiry would be acceptable to the parties. 3. One objection that has been made on behalf of the applicants is that all the four plaintiffs did not join in the reference to arbitration and although there was one of the vakils for the plaintiffs who represented all four, he did not sign the order referring the case to the arbitrators, which was on the contrary signed by only one plaintiff and by counsel for two of the plaintiffs, Mr. Raghubir Prasad. There is authority however for holding that the absence of a written application is only an irregularity and need not vitiate the award-- Mahabir Vs. Manohar Singh, AIR 1924 All 540 Shama Sundram Iyer v. Abdul Latif (1900) 27 Cal. 61:4 Cal. WN 92; Abdul Hamid v. Riaz-ud-din (1903) 30 All . 32: 4 ALJ 691: 1907 AWN 273. The order sheet moreover shows that the parties and their vakils were present, and I think this must be taken to include Mr. Kamlakar Chaturvedi who appeared for all the Plaintiffs and who was actually appointed one of the arbitrators. 61:4 Cal. WN 92; Abdul Hamid v. Riaz-ud-din (1903) 30 All . 32: 4 ALJ 691: 1907 AWN 273. The order sheet moreover shows that the parties and their vakils were present, and I think this must be taken to include Mr. Kamlakar Chaturvedi who appeared for all the Plaintiffs and who was actually appointed one of the arbitrators. After the award has been filed in Court, objections were made by two of the Plaintiffs, not the present applicants, and there was no objection on. the ground that all the parties in the suit had not joined in the reference to arbitration. I am satisfied on the facts that all the Plaintiffs did join. 4. The award however must be held to have been beyond the powers of the arbitrators. The decision of the arbitrators was that the Plaintiffs were to get Rs. 100/- as compensation up to 30th Kathick 1340 and the Defendants were to be held to be owners of plots Nos. 77 and 78. The Plaintiffs' case was that he owned these plots and the Defendants denied their title. The decision of the arbitrators amounts to this, that the land is the property of the Plaintiffs, but that they are to be awarded compensation in money for the land, the title of which is to be transferred to the Defendants. The arbitrators were empowered to settle the dispute between the parties as set forth in the pleadings, but not to effect a settlement by the transfer of lard between the parties at a price, which was not part of the pleadings. This part of the award therefore seems to me to be clearly ultra virus, and the result is that the award is invalid and must be set aside under the provisions of Clause (c) of Para. 15 of Schedule II, CPC I was somewhat reluctant to interfere in a decision which may be a perfectly equitable settlement between the parties and with which the majority of the parties appear to be satisfied, but under the provisions of the law it seems to me that I have no option. I therefore allow the application with costs, set aside the decree and the award and direct that the suit be restored to the file on its original number and tried according to law.