Chaudhry ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 3-11-1981 by which the objections filed by the appellants to the award dated 9-5-1976 were dismissed and the award was made a Rule of the Court. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Dalip Singh, Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal were related to each other. They had a joint business and a piece of land comprised in field No. 1540 and 1541. On the land a Kothi bearing No. 508 was built in the year 1958. On the remaining land a factory shed bearing municipal number 508/1 was built in the year 1965. Dalip Singh was occupying half portion of the Kothi while the remaining half was in possession of Mangat Ram. In the year 1973 certain disputes arose between arose between Dalip Singh and his family consisting of his wife and four sons on one side and Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal on the other side. The disputes inter-alia were regarding the kothi, the factory shed and rendition of accounts of the joint business. Dalip Singh claimed half share in the Kothi and the factory shed. ( 3 ) THE parties resolved to get their disputes settled by arbitration. A deed of reference was drawn on 27-3-1973 between Dalip Singh and his family consisting of himself, his wife and four sons (hereinafter referred to dalip Singh and Others ) Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal. The disputes were referred to the arbitration of three Arbitrators namely Shri Khazan Singh S/o Shri Abhey Ram, Shri Khazan Singh S/o Shri Khan Chand and Shri Khushi Ram. The Arbitrators conducted the proceedings, gave full opportunities to the parties for leading evidence and heard them. They made an interim award on 18-8-1974 and the final award was made on 1-5-1976. The award delivered by the Arbitrators was unanimous. ( 4 ) THE award was got filed in Court by invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Dalip Singh and others did not accept the award and filed objections (being I. A. No. 2241 / 1976 ). Similarly objections were also filed by Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal which were the subject matter of Indian Administrative Service No. 2242 and 2243/1976. The parties filed replies to the respective objections. Dalip Singh and others did not accept the award and filed objections (being I. A. No. 2241 / 1976 ). Similarly objections were also filed by Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal which were the subject matter of Indian Administrative Service No. 2242 and 2243/1976. The parties filed replies to the respective objections. The following issues were raised on I. A. No. 2241/1976 :- 1. Are any of the grounds alleged by Objectors to the effect, that the award is invalid or void, barred by the principles of res-judicata because of the decision in O. M. P. No. 117 of 1974 ? 2. Have the Arbitrators failed to decide any dispute as alleged by the Objectors ? If so, to what effect ? 3. Have the Arbitrators misconducted themselves and/or the proceedings as alleged by the Objectors ? If so, to what effect ? 4. Is the award in excess of the reference on the grounds alleged by the Objectors ? If so, to what effect ? 5. Have the Arbitrators failed to decide any dispute between the parties as alleged by the Objectors ? If so, to what effect ? 6. Have the Arbitrators acted perversely as alleged by the Objectors ? If so, to what effect ? 7. Whether there are any errors apparent on the face of the award, as alleged by the Objectors in respect of issues 1 to 8 ? 8. To what reliefs ? ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties in Indian Administrative Service. No. 1242 and 2243 of 1976 the following issues were framed :- 1. Have the Arbitrators failed to decide the disputes between the parties relating to interest, means profits, telephone and water charges ? 2. Is the award liable to be remitted back for the decision of any or all of the said disputes ? 3. To what relief ? ( 6 ) THE parties led evidence by way of affidavits. The learned single Judge heard the parties and dismissed the objections of Dalip Singh and others. Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal did not press the issues which were the subject matter of Indian Administrative Service No, 2242 and 2243/1976. The award was made a Rule of the Court. ( 7 ) IT may be stated that Dalip Singh died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court and his legal representatives continued the proceedings. Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal did not press the issues which were the subject matter of Indian Administrative Service No, 2242 and 2243/1976. The award was made a Rule of the Court. ( 7 ) IT may be stated that Dalip Singh died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court and his legal representatives continued the proceedings. This appeal has been filed by the wife of Dalip Singh and his sons. ( 8 ) THE only point that was convassed before us by Shri O. N. Vohra, learned counsel for the appellants is that the award is vitiated because the Arbitrators were guilty of legal misconduct. It is stated that on 4. 4. 1974 the Arbitrators in the absence of Dalip Singh and others accepted a compromise entered into between Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal. The grievance made is that the compromise was accepted by the Arbitrators at the back of Dalip Singh and he had no opportunity to rebut the compromise. ( 9 ) IT may be stated that by virtue of the compromise dated 4. 4. 1974 Chhotey Lal and Mangat Ram settled their accounts and gave up their rival claims against each other. They further agreed that they would be equally entitled in all their jointly owned properties including Kothi No. WZ-508, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. Mangat Ram was recorded as the owner of the Kothi in the Municipal Records. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that this compromise which was filed and accepted by the Arbitrators in the absence of Dalip Singh amounted to legal misconduct. It was further asserted that the compromise has caused injustice to Dalip Singh and others. ( 11 ) IT may be mentioned that we have gone through the objection petition i. e. I A. No. 2241/1976 and there is no plea to the effect that the Arbitrators were guilty of legal misconduct by accepting the compromise on 4-4-1974 in the absence of Dalip Singh. Anyhow, this point was raised before the learned single Judge and was repelled. ( 12 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. In our opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. The compromise between Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal relating to the Kothi was only between them. ( 12 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. In our opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. The compromise between Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal relating to the Kothi was only between them. The compromise did not effect the claim of Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh had claimed half share in the Kothi. The Arbitrators had raised there issues on this aspect of the matter. The issues are as under:- WHETHER Shri Dalip Singh is entitled to any share in Kothi No. WZ 508 ? If so then how and to what share ? Whether Shri Mangat Ram is entitled to any share in the factory shed No. WZ-508 ? If so then how and to what share ? Whether Shri Chhotey Lal is entitled to any share in properties Nos, WZ-508, 508/1, Cinema Plot in Mansarover Garden Colony, if so, to what effect ? ( 13 ) THE record of the Arbitrators shows that the Statements of Shri Dalip Singh and Mangat Ram were recorded on 19-6-1974. On 14-7-1974 the inspection was made by the Arbitrators in the presence of the parties. The Arbitrators heard the arguments on 3-8-1974. On all these hearings Dalip Singh was present. The record further reveals that the parties were given reasonable opportunity of being heard at all stages of the proceedings. Dalip Singh filed documents adduced evidence and made his own statement before the Arbitrators. He was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the other side. He was also heard by the learned Arbitrators before making of the award. ( 14 ) WE have perused the award. The award given by the Arbitrators on Issues No. 1, 3 and 5 reads as under :- WE find and ward that Shri Dalip Singh neither had nor shall have any right, title or interest in the said Kothi No. WZ-508, comprised in Khasra No. 1541, situated in Basai Darapur, New Delhi. Shri Dalip Singh who has been living in a part of Kothi No. WZ-508, alongwith his wife Mukti Tanwar and his sons, parties hereto with the permission of Shri Mangat Ram, we award that he, his wife and his sons shall vacate the same on or before 31st July 1976 on receiving a sum of Rs. 13,600. Shri Dalip Singh who has been living in a part of Kothi No. WZ-508, alongwith his wife Mukti Tanwar and his sons, parties hereto with the permission of Shri Mangat Ram, we award that he, his wife and his sons shall vacate the same on or before 31st July 1976 on receiving a sum of Rs. 13,600. 00 from Shri Mangat Ram, to which we have found him entitled to under issue No. 6 and hand over vacant possession to Shri Mangat Ram. We find and award that Shri Mangat Ram shall have no right, title or interest in factory shed No, WZ-508/1, compromised in Khasra No. 1540, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. During the hearing, a dispute was raised with regard to the boundary between Khasra No. 1540, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, in which factory shed No. WZ-508/1; is situated and Khasra No. 1541, Basai Darapur, New Delhi in which Kothi No. WZ-508, is situated. (i) We award that the demarcation between the properties bearing Khasra Nos. 1540 and 1541 shall be as under :- A demarcation line will commence from the northern portion of the eastern gate and will run in a straight line so as to reach a point 5 away from south-western corner of Kothi No. 508, and thereafter it will run in a straight line till it reaches the boundary will. We clarify that the tubewell falls within the Kothi premises being subject matter of Issue No. 1. (ii) We hold and award that Shri Mangat Ram and/or Shri Dalip Singh are and shall be entitled to construct a boundary wall alongwith the demarcation line referred to above but not exceeding 9" in width at the cost. of constructing party. (iii) We award that Shri Mangat Ram shall remove the existing eastern gate of Kothi No. 508, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, immediately within a week after Shri Dalip Singh shall vacate the said Kothi. "we find and award that Shri Chhotey Lal was all through the joint owner in equal share in the property No. WZ-508, Basai Darapur. New Delhi with Shri Mangat Ram. We award that Shri Mangat Ram, shall take all necessary steps to have the name of Shri Chhotey Lal included in the Municipal records as a joint owner of the said property in equal shares, with him. New Delhi with Shri Mangat Ram. We award that Shri Mangat Ram, shall take all necessary steps to have the name of Shri Chhotey Lal included in the Municipal records as a joint owner of the said property in equal shares, with him. We find and award that Shri Chhotey Lal neither had nor shall have any right, title or interest in property No. 508/1, which we have held under Issue No. 3, as the exclusive property of Shri Dalip Singh. With regard to Cinema Plot in Mansarover Garden Colony we have already held under issue No. 4 that as all the necessary parties are not parties to the reference, we have no jurisdiction to make an award with regard to the same. ( 15 ) THE Arbitrators have independently decided the matter without relying upon the compromise between Chhotey Lal and Mangat Ram dated 4-4-1974. Their decision is not based on any such compromise. Rather there is no reference at all to this compromise in the award. From the record it appears that Dalip Singh had also entered into various compromises with Mangat Ram and Chhotey Lal settling the disputes. One of the compromises is dated 27-1-1972 between Dalip Singh and Mangat Ram and the other compromise is dated 13-6-1974 between Dalip Singh and Chhotey Lal. These compromises were placed on the record of the Arbitrators. Now the appellants cannot be allowed to urge that the compromise entered into between Chhotey Laland Mangat Ram, placed on the record of the arbitration Proceedings were not in consonance with the rules of natural justice. We are unable to see how the interest of Dalip Singh, who claimed half share in the Kothi was affected by this compromise. The Arbitrators have been receiving the compromise filed before them by the parties. The procedure adopted by the Arbitrators was not "unusual and unfair. It does not come within the mischief of violation of natural justice . The parties were given full opportunities to plead their case. There has been no misconduct on the part of the Arbitrators. ( 16 ) WE agree with the reasonings of the learned single Judge on this point that the Arbitrators were not guilty of misconduct. We see no legal flaw or infirmity in the judgment under appeal. The result is that we do not find any merit in the appeal and it has to be dismissed. ( 16 ) WE agree with the reasonings of the learned single Judge on this point that the Arbitrators were not guilty of misconduct. We see no legal flaw or infirmity in the judgment under appeal. The result is that we do not find any merit in the appeal and it has to be dismissed. We order accordingly, In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own cases.