with respect to the open land. Without prejudice, the Trust Managing Committee was to exercise powers to draft bye laws, policy manuals, guidelines for membership, use, administration, maintenance and operation of the club house and other facilities including under ground parking spaces and open land. Finally, the obligations of the partner societies specifically recorded under the Deed of Partnership (Clause 20) require that each of the societies shall have their respective undivided interest in the open land as appended to their proprietory interest in the land and that they shall never claim any portion of the open land by division or secure an interest severally. These provisions clearly indicate, at least at this prima facie stage, that the open plot of land cannot be used by any individual partner society to the exclusion of others of the four societies, both by way of an incident of joint ownership and also as per the mandate of the Deed of Partnership. The conclusion of the learned Arbitrator that the Deed of partnership does nothing more than to empower the Managing Committee to decide on certain matters within the framework of the law of joint ownership and the provisions of the Partnership Deed, and that the proposal of the Petitioner to the extent that it involves exclusive possession and use of the playground plot by it was contrary both to the general legal incidents of joint ownership and to the understanding of the parties embodied in the Partnership Deed, is a fair and reasonable conclusion which does not call for any interference under Section 37.
