SIKRI, J. 1. The parties to these proceedings are four brothers viz. Mr. J.N. Uppal, Mr. G.K. Uppal, Mr. P.N. Uppal and Dr. Harish Uppal as well as their sister Ms. Indira Uppal. The disputes are in relation to two properties, namely, 20 Todarmal Road, New Delhi – 110 001 and 9A/50, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005 (hereinafter referred to as the „Todarmal property? and „Karol Bagh property? respectively). I shall record the events, as they happened, chronologically and while recording those facts, background of various litigations which erupted between the parties would also get surfaced. 2. As mentioned above, the parties were owners of the aforesaid two properties. In the year 1988, the parties desired that these properties be partitioned. Document dated 29.3.1989 was written as per which partition of the said properties was effected on 17/18.7.1988. 3. In the year 1994, however, Ms. Indira Uppal filed suit for partition, which was registered as Suit No. 146/1994. She impleaded her four brothers as defendants in the said suit. In this suit, she stated that she was a physically handicapped lady with 80% disability. Father and mother of the parties expired on 1.12.1968 and 6.6.1985 respectively and on their demise the aforesaid properties were inherited by the parties. Mutation was also effected in the names of the parties and in this manner all brothers and sister became owners to the extent of 1/5th share each, in the said properties. She further averred that being handicapped and over-protected as well as pampered by her parents and barely educated, she never bothered or looked into the legalities of inheritance and mutation and worked on faith in her brothers and signed as wanted by them. In or around 1972, an order was passed by the Income-Tax authorities that the above-mentioned two properties were protectively assessed as HUF (Smt. Desh Raj – mother of the parties). This was only a protective order and the plaintiff was not aware of the same. She further pleaded that there could not be a HUF in the name of a lady. In any case, she became aware of this in June 1989 when she was defrauded and misled by the defendant No.1, Mr. This was only a protective order and the plaintiff was not aware of the same. She further pleaded that there could not be a HUF in the name of a lady. In any case, she became aware of this in June 1989 when she was defrauded and misled by the defendant No.1, Mr. J.N. Uppal, in putting her signatures on a document dated 29.3.1989 on the undertaking and assurance that he would get the ground floor of Karol Bagh property vacated for her and only then the said document dated 29.3.1989 shall be got registered as it has no value without registration and without an order under Section 171 of the Income-Tax Act. He also undertook that she could occupy and use the front portion of first floor of Todarmal property. She moved there in the last week of June and was in occupation of that portion. However, one month thereafter, the defendant No.1 and his wife forced her to vacate the premises on the false pretext of getting some whitewashing and thereafter never allowed her to occupy the portion in the Todarmal property and never took interest or made any effort to get ground floor of the Karol Bagh property vacated for her. She further pleaded that, in fact, no agreements, oral or otherwise, came about on 18.7.1988 as falsely stated in the document dated 29.3.1989 and, therefore, no partition of properties had taken place. On this premise, with some other averments also made in the plaint, she prayed for a decree of partition in respect of the aforesaid two properties by metes and bounds. She also filed an interim application seeking restraint against the defendants in the suit from alienating the properties. On 18.1.1994, an injunction order to this effect was issued in the said application. 4. Mr. J.N. Uppal also filed suit No. 528/1994 and preferred an application for status quo in which order was passed on 4.3.1994 directing maintenance of status quo in respect of possession, etc. He also moved another application under Order VII Rule 11 in Suit No. 146/1994 for rejection of the plaint. On 24.2.1994, order was passed for clubbing of both these suits. No substantial progress was made in the suits thereafter for quite some time. However, attempts were made for compromise. 5. On 23.8.2001, the Court recorded that no compromise came about and listed the matter for hearing on 14.12.2001. On 24.2.1994, order was passed for clubbing of both these suits. No substantial progress was made in the suits thereafter for quite some time. However, attempts were made for compromise. 5. On 23.8.2001, the Court recorded that no compromise came about and listed the matter for hearing on 14.12.2001. However, before that date, the parties vide letter dated 28.10.2001, signed by each of them, referred the disputes in both the suits (one filed by Ms. Indiran Uppal and the other by Mr. J.N. Uppal) to the arbitration of one Mr. A.P. Malik, who is the husband of another sister of the parties (brother-in-law/Jija), for settlement of the disputes. According to Ms. Indira Uppal, Mr.A.P.Malik (hereinafter referred to as the „learned arbitrator?) was appointed as the arbitrator and disputes regarding partition of the two properties were referred to him for decision. On 25.11.2001, the learned arbitrator gave the award as per which the parties had decided to sell both the properties. The learned arbitrator, in respect of claims in Suit No. 146/1994, decided the shares of all the parties in the following manner :- “After going through the submission made by all of you and considering different aspects of Investment made by Individuals and notional rents of the part of the property occupied by Individuals and the actual rents received etc. I have come to the conclusion and decide that distribution of total proceeds of the two properties amongst five of you should be as given below :- 1. Sh. J.N. Uppal : (x + 8.5) lakhs rupees 2. Sh. G.K. Uppal : (x – 3.00 ) lakhs rupees 3. Sh. P.N. Uppal : (x ± 0.00) lakhs rupees 4. Sh. H. Uppal : (x + 1.00) lakhs rupees 5. Ms. Indira Uppal : (x – 6.5) lakhs rupees Where x = 20% i.e. 1/5th of Total Sale value of the two properties. For example assuming the sale value as Rs.300 lakh (3 crores), Distribution will be as given below :- x = 300/5 = 60 lakhs 1. Sh. J.N. Uppal : 60 + 8.5 = 68.5 lakhs 2. Sh. G.K. Uppal : 60 – 3.00 = 57.00 lakhs 3. Sh. P.N. Uppal : 60 ± 0.00 = 60.00 lakhs 4. Sh. H. Uppal : 60 + 1.00 = 61.00 lakhs 5. Ms. Sh. J.N. Uppal : 60 + 8.5 = 68.5 lakhs 2. Sh. G.K. Uppal : 60 – 3.00 = 57.00 lakhs 3. Sh. P.N. Uppal : 60 ± 0.00 = 60.00 lakhs 4. Sh. H. Uppal : 60 + 1.00 = 61.00 lakhs 5. Ms. Indira Uppal : 60 – 6.5 = 53.5 lakhs Suitable Action for withdrawal of all the related cases in High Court & Lower Court should be taken by all concerned.” The award in respect of Suit No. 528/1994 is to the following effect :- “ AWARD SUIT NO. 528 OF 1994 IN DELHI HIGH COURT On the Joint request of the parties and their assurance that they shall abide by the decision of undersigned and specific consent of all that oral hearings be held, no minute of proceedings need to be made and no reasons are required to be given and the above suit pending in Delhi High Court shall be withdrawn. The undersigned held oral hearings at 20, Todarmal Road, New Delhi and all the parties were present. The main contending parties are only Shri J.N. Uppal and Shri H. Uppal. In reference note dt. 07.10.01 S/Shri G.K. Uppal, P.N. Uppal, Shri Harish Uppal and Miss Indira Uppal have agreed not to object to withdrawal of suit. Decision Mr. J.N. Uppal is entitled to get Rs. 14 lakhs in cash from Mr. Harish Uppal. Accordingly, Mr. Harish Uppal should pay the amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to Mr. J.N. Uppal as per the procedure laid down in the note dt. 7.10.2001 regarding payment to be made and withdrawal of the above-mentioned case. (A.P. MALIK) Hosue No. 611, 25.11.2001 Sector-14, Gurgaon” {These awards, as they appear in Suit No. 146/1994 and Suit No. 528/1994, shall henceforth be referred to as the „former award? and „latter award? for the sake of convenience}. 6. As per the latter award as all the parties had to withdraw their respective cases, Mr. J.N. Uppal moved IA No. 11644/2001 in Suit No. 528/1994 for withdrawal of the said suit. Along with that application he also filed copy of the said award. Dr. Harish Uppal (defendant No.4) also deposited Rs. 14 lakhs with the arbitrator on 3.12.2001. IA No. 11644/2001 filed by Mr. J.N. Uppal moved IA No. 11644/2001 in Suit No. 528/1994 for withdrawal of the said suit. Along with that application he also filed copy of the said award. Dr. Harish Uppal (defendant No.4) also deposited Rs. 14 lakhs with the arbitrator on 3.12.2001. IA No. 11644/2001 filed by Mr. J.N. Uppal in his suit came up for hearing on 14.12.2001 when he stated that he had moved another application as he wanted a decree from the Court for a sum of Rs.14 lakhs and did not want to withdraw the suit. This application filed by him for passing a decree of Rs.14 lakhs was registered as IA No. 2066/2002. 7. Mr. J.N. Uppal, in rejoinder to IA No. 11644/2001, took the plea that the former award of the learned arbitrator was not an award in the eyes of law, he was never appointed as the arbitrator and there was no arbitration at all. Ms. Indira Uppal filed IA No. 3309/2001 in her Suit No. 146/1994 for withdrawal of the said suit. She also filed Execution Petition No. 102/2002 seeking execution of the awards dated 25.11.2001 given by the learned arbitrator. 8. The position which emerged as on that date was that whereas Ms. Indira Uppal stated that a valid award was rendered by Mr. A.P. Malik, to whom the disputes were referred for adjudication, and filed execution thereof, insofar as Mr. J.N. Uppal is concerned, after taking steps for withdrawal of his suit, treating the two awards dated 25.11.2001 as proper and annexing copy thereof as well, took a somersault and pleaded that there was neither any validly appointed arbitrator nor proper arbitration proceedings or award. In view of this dispute, Mr. A.P. Malik returned Rs.14 lakhs to Dr. Harish Uppal on 21.8.2002. 9. Some subsequent proceedings which came to be filed may now be noted :- (a) EA No. 365/2002 in Ex.P. No. 102/2002 are the objections filed by Mr. J.N. Uppal to the said execution. (b) Dr. Harish Uppal filed IA No. 2343/2002 in Suit No. 528/94 for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable without any cause of action as no HUF every existed. (c) Ms. Indira Uppal also filed IA No. 258/2003 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. J.N. Uppal to the said execution. (b) Dr. Harish Uppal filed IA No. 2343/2002 in Suit No. 528/94 for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable without any cause of action as no HUF every existed. (c) Ms. Indira Uppal also filed IA No. 258/2003 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (d) Since suit No. 528/1994 was valued at Rs.6 lakhs, on the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs, this suit was transferred to the District Court. The learned ADJ, to whom the suit was marked, framed preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit on which arguments also commenced. Mr. J.N. Uppal, however, withdrew this suit on 15.5.2005. At that stage, Mr. J.N. Uppal filed Ex.P. No. 12/2004 on the basis of awards dated 25.11.2001 producing certified copy of the said awards obtained from the High Court, which he had filed earlier in this suit on 11.12.2001 when he had moved application for withdrawal of the suit on the basis of the said award. Dr. Harish Uppal filed objections thereto. This execution was directed to be transferred to this Court to be heard along with other proceedings arising out of the Suit No. 146/1994 and is registered as Ex.P. No. 74/2005. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop, I shall first deal with the objections raised by Mr. J.N. Uppal to the Ex.P. No. 102/2002 filed by Ms. Indira Uppal. 11. In the first instance, it was argued that when there was a complete settlement recorded on 17/18.7.1988, the question of partitioning the properties or raising any dispute about these properties thereafter did not arise. The submission of Mr. J.N. Uppal was that the possession was taken by the parties of their respective shares in accordance with the said settlement of 1988 and they were in occupation and enjoyment of their respective portions. Information about this partition was also given to the concerned authorities, including the Income-Tax Department, and each one of them started paying taxes in respect of their respective shares and, therefore, the partition was even acted upon. It is further submitted that no reference was made to Mr. A.P. Malik, the learned Arbitrator, in the said Suit No. 146/1994 and there was no question of re-partition. Since no dispute was referred to him, no award could be made by him either. It is further submitted that no reference was made to Mr. A.P. Malik, the learned Arbitrator, in the said Suit No. 146/1994 and there was no question of re-partition. Since no dispute was referred to him, no award could be made by him either. It is argued that Mr. A.P. Malik tried to act as a mediator and not arbitrator to settle the accounts of the properties which had nothing to do with the properties. No legal proceedings or any arbitration proceedings took place at the house of Mr. A.P. Malik or any other place. The validity of document dated 28.10.2001, as per which the matter was referred to Mr. A.P. Malik, is challenged on the ground that this is no agreement in the eyes of law as it is specifically stated that “this paper cannot be produced in any court for any purpose whatsoever”. It is also stated that the document alleged to be the award and filed by Ms. Indira Uppal along with her execution petition is different from the one filed by Mr.A.P. Malik in this Court. He has gone to the extent of accusing Mr.A.P. Malik for forging and fabricating the document at the behest of Dr.Harish Uppal. He has tried to point out the following discrepancies between the two awards, i.e. the one filed by Ms. Indira Uppal along with her execution and the other filed by Mr. Malik in the Court :- Document filed by Ms. Indira Uppal with execution Document produced by Mr.A.P. Malik in the Court a) The word “Award” is not written. a) The word “Award” is written. b) The name of the parties mentioned on the top. b) No name of parties mentioned. c) No introducing para I incorporated. c) Contains introducing para “on the ….oral submissions.” d) The word “Decision” is not written d) The word “Decision” added after the first para. e) The first page does not bear signatures of Mr. Malik e) First page bears signatures of Mr. Malik at bottom. f) On the second page the date is written in hand on the left side as well as under the signature f) The date if typed on the left side and there is no date under the signature. g) No address/place is mentioned in this document. g) Address has been typed under the signature. Malik at bottom. f) On the second page the date is written in hand on the left side as well as under the signature f) The date if typed on the left side and there is no date under the signature. g) No address/place is mentioned in this document. g) Address has been typed under the signature. It is further alleged that the former award does not contain any reasons which is mandatory; copy of the award was not sent to the parties; Ms. Indira Uppal had not taken any steps for withdrawal of her suit though the so-called award mandated it and that the document dated 25.11.2001 was at best a valuation report and not an award. 12. Not only the aforesaid objections are misconceived, I am also of the view that the objector Mr. J.N. Uppal is precluded from raising any such objections. As pointed out above, it was Mr. J.N. Uppal who took the first step towards the implementation of the latter award. He moved IA No. 11644/2001 in Suit No. 528/1994 for withdrawal of the said suit on the basis of this award. The tenor of that application clearly states that it is filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 & 3 of the CPC for withdrawal of the above suit. Even when he made a statement that he wants to withdraw the suit, his only plea was that he wanted a decree to be passed for a sum of Rs.14 lakhs. This move was to secure payment of Rs.14 lakhs, which he was to receive from Dr. Harish Uppal in terms of the latter award. Therefore, his only fear was that after the withdrawal of the suit, in case Dr. Harish Uppal does not make the payment, he would be rendered remediless, though Dr. Harish Uppal had already deposited that amount with Mr. A.P. Malik. In any case, even this move of Mr. J.N. Uppal was not intended to challenge the arbitration awards but was in the aid thereof. Strangely, when reply to the application was filed by Dr.Harish Uppal, in rejoinder only a diametrically opposite stand was taken by Mr. J.N. Uppal, who turned turtle and contended that Mr. Malik was not appointed as an arbitrator and it was not an award. 13. Again when Mr. Strangely, when reply to the application was filed by Dr.Harish Uppal, in rejoinder only a diametrically opposite stand was taken by Mr. J.N. Uppal, who turned turtle and contended that Mr. Malik was not appointed as an arbitrator and it was not an award. 13. Again when Mr. J.N. Uppal wanted to pursue Suit No. 528/1994 filed by him, after objection to the maintainability to this award was taken and arguments proceeded, not only he withdrew the said suit but he himself filed Execution 12/2004 (now Ex.P. No. 74/2005) on the basis of the latter award dated 25.11.2001. In this execution, he has specifically mentioned that he is seeking execution of award dated 25.11.2001 passed by Mr. A.P. Malik as sole arbitrator. Interestingly, he has also stated that against this award neither any appeal nor any objections are filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He has also stated that award amount of Rs.14 lakhs was deposited by Dr. Harish Uppal with Mr. A.P. Malik as per his directions, but later on Dr. Harish Uppal took back the said amount from the learned arbitrator. Claim made in the execution is for payment of Rs.14 lakhs plus interest of Rs.5,84,000/- and further interest @ 18% p.a. 14. When Mr. J.N. Uppal, in this manner accepts the reference, arbitration proceedings as well as the award in the suit filed by him, it does not lie in his mouth to object to the award rendered in Suit No. 146/1994 when disputes in both the cases were referred simultaneously and under the identical circumstances two awards of the same date came to be passed. 15. In view of the above, it is not even necessary to deal with the objections, most of which in any case stand answered. The aforesaid discussion would answer the objection of Mr. J.N. Uppal that there was no agreements in the eyes of law for reference of the matters to Mr. A.P. Malik. It is not permissible for Mr. Uppal to take such a spacious plea after he appeared before Mr. Malik and even accepted the award initially. Furthermore, his argument is based on the ground that in the document dated 28.10.2001, vide which reference was made, it was specifically written that “this paper cannot be produced in any court for any purpose whatsoever”. Uppal to take such a spacious plea after he appeared before Mr. Malik and even accepted the award initially. Furthermore, his argument is based on the ground that in the document dated 28.10.2001, vide which reference was made, it was specifically written that “this paper cannot be produced in any court for any purpose whatsoever”. However, that would not mean that it was not an agreement to refer the dispute to Mr. A.P. Malik. Intention appears to be that since the dispute was between the family members inter se and the reference was also made to the brother-in-law of these parties, the quietus to the dispute is given privately. Furthermore, had the said document, i.e. the arbitration agreement, be not acted upon and any party wanted to enforce the said agreement, probably such a plea could have been raised, namely, it was not intended to produce the agreement in the court of law. That occasion did not arise inasmuch as the parties went ahead and acted upon the said agreement by referring the disputes to Mr. A.P. Malik and inviting his award. 16. The argument that the award is a forged and fabricated document is also totally fallacious. It is based on the so-called discrepancies in the two copies of the award, one filed by Ms. Indira Uppal along with the execution and the other filed by Mr. A.P. Malik in the Court. However, a closer scrutiny would reveal that the operative portion of the award remains the same in both the documents. Explanation is given by the counsel for Ms. Indira Uppal as well as Dr. Harish Uppal that the award was given to Ms. Indira Uppal and copies to others as well. When this document was to be produced in this Court, Mr. Malik formally described it as an „award? and, therefore, wrote the word „Award? and also name of the parties, etc. The explanation given appears to be justifiable. It cannot, in any case, be said that Mr. Malik forged or fabricated the document, as alleged by Mr. J.N. Uppal. It is also not necessary that such an award had to contain any reasons. I also do not agree with the suggestion that the document dated 25.11.2001 is not an award but only a valuation report. 17. Some other aspects which need to be commented upon may now be referred to. 18. J.N. Uppal. It is also not necessary that such an award had to contain any reasons. I also do not agree with the suggestion that the document dated 25.11.2001 is not an award but only a valuation report. 17. Some other aspects which need to be commented upon may now be referred to. 18. The order of the Income-Tax authorities, which is referred to by Ms.Indira Uppal in her suit, was challenged by her in appeal. The appeals were filed by her as well as Dr. Harish Uppal. These appeals were decided by a common order dated 28.5.2002 accepting the contention of the appellants and holding that there could not have been any such HUF with Smt. Padmavati Uppal as Karta. Order dated 24.4.1998 passed under Section 171 (3) by the Assessing Authority is, accordingly, declared null and void and has been cancelled and the appeals allowed by the said order. Thus, the very purpose of the purported settlement of 1988 goes. 19. It is also an admitted fact that as per mutation done in the year 1974, the name of Kumari Lalitha Uppal @ Indira Uppal appears and, thus, she is the owner of the properties to the extent of 1/5th. This property was mutated after the relinquishment of share of another sister Ms. Savita Uppal (now w/o Mr. A.P. Malik). In the Will executed by the mother of the parties, she has specifically mentioned that Ms. Indira Uppal is to be given a share in these properties. 20. Further, though as per the document dated 29.3.1989, oral partition took place on 17/18.7.1988, there is, on record, a letter dated 3.9.1988 written by Mr. J.N. Uppal himself, which would show that there was no partition till that date. There are similar letters of other brothers placed on record. It was for all these reasons that there was a dispute as to whether there is any partition or not. In the suit for partition filed by Ms. Indira Uppal, she challenged the veracity and authenticity of the alleged partition document dated 29.3.1989. It is during the pendency of this suit that the parties agreed for settlement of the disputes by Mr. A.P. Malik. Mr. J.N. Uppal or any other brother cannot now turn around and challenge the award on the basis of alleged partition in the year 1988 and recorded on 29.3.1989. 21. Strangely, when Mr. It is during the pendency of this suit that the parties agreed for settlement of the disputes by Mr. A.P. Malik. Mr. J.N. Uppal or any other brother cannot now turn around and challenge the award on the basis of alleged partition in the year 1988 and recorded on 29.3.1989. 21. Strangely, when Mr. J.N. Uppal had initially taken steps in the aid of the said arbitration awards, Dr. Harish Uppal was raising objections insofar as payment of Rs.14 lakhs by him is concerned and with the passage of time, both Mr. J.N. Uppal and Dr. Harish Uppal have changed their positions. Today, Dr. Harish Uppal is supporting the award and Mr. J.N. Uppal objecting thereto. Had Dr. Harish Uppal accepted the plea of Mr. J.N. Uppal and paid the sum of Rs.14 lakhs when Mr. J.N. Uppal wanted a decree for the said amount in his suit, probably the position in which the parties have landed today would not have arisen. Be that as it may, better counsel had prevailed upon Dr. Harish Uppal. He has, in fact, deposited the amount of Rs.14 lakhs in this Court. 22. In view of my aforesaid discussion, following orders are passed in various proceedings :- (a) EA No. 365/2002 in Ex.P. No. 102/2002 These objections and other objections raised by other brothers are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. (b) Suit No. 146/1994 IA No. 3309/2001 for withdrawal of the suit is allowed and the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. All IAs pending in the suit also stand disposed of. (c) Ex.P. No. 74/2005 Mr. J.N. Uppal has prayed for payment of Rs.14 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a. Insofar as amount of Rs.14 lakhs is concerned, the same was deposited by Dr. Harish UPpal in this Court and Mr. J.N. Uppal is permitted to withdraw the said amount in satisfaction of the decree. Insofar as the question of payment of interest is concerned, in view of my discussion above, I am of the opinion that fault lies with both the parties and some equitable solution is to be found out. Dr. Harish Uppal had deposited this amount with Mr. A.P. Malik immediately after the award, i.e. on 3.12.2001. Had Mr. J.N. Uppal withdrawn his suit immediately, he would have got this amount from Mr. Malik. Therefore, Mr. Dr. Harish Uppal had deposited this amount with Mr. A.P. Malik immediately after the award, i.e. on 3.12.2001. Had Mr. J.N. Uppal withdrawn his suit immediately, he would have got this amount from Mr. Malik. Therefore, Mr. J.N. Uppal would not be entitled to any interest for the period this money remained with Mr. Malik. Dr. Harish Uppal, however, was given back this money by Mr. Malik on 21.8.2002. Thereafter, this money remained with Dr.Harish Uppal till he deposited the same in the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Dr. Harish Uppal should pay interest to Mr. J.N. Uppal for this period @ 6% p.a. Actual interest shall be calculated and paid to Mr. J.N. Uppal within two months from today. On payment of this amount, this execution shall stand fully satisfied. This execution is, thus, disposed of with liberty to Mr. J.N. Uppal to seek revival in case the amount, as aforesaid, is not paid by Dr. Harish Uppal. (d) Ex.P. No. 102/2002 In view of dismissal of the objections, the award is to be executed as decree. Though as per the award, properties are to be sold and shares distributed, it would be appropriate that in the first instance attempt is made for inter se biddings. For this purpose, the matter shall be listed before the Court on 15.07.2008, on which date it shall be listed before the Regular Bench.