CHIRANJILAL SHRILAL GOENKA(DECEASED) THROUGH LR versus JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 18-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIRANJILALSHRILALGOENKA(DECEASED) TIIROUGH L. RS. 
v. 
JASJITSINGHAND ORS. 
MARCH 18, 1993 
B 
(Y.. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
Arbitration Act : 
Sections 8, 14, 17, 20, 30 and 33-Arbitratol'-Whether entitled to 
C enquire into execution and genuineness of will. 
D 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: Sections 213, · 217, 222, 223 and 
276-Will--Probate of jurisdiction of probate cowt to enquire into execution 
cl., 
and genuineness of wi/1--Whethel'-Arbitrator can enquire into such issues 
under Arbitration Act. 
The appellant Shri Chiranjilal Shri Lal Goenka was involved in 
several suits, one of which was the present appeal. He died on November 25, 
1985 leaving behind his last Will dated October 29, 1982 in which he ap· 
pointed his younger daughter Mrs. Sushila N. Ruugta as the sole executrix. 
Radhey Shyam, the natural son of Shri Mangal Chand Kedia and Mrs. Sita 
E 
daughter of Shri C.S. Goenka; claimed to be the adopted son of Shri C.S. 
F 
Goenka. 
The applicant, executrix; Radhey Sh yam and his wife filed substitution 
applications under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC setting up rival claims. When the 
dispute arose as to who should represent the estate of Shri C.S. Goenka by 
order dated October 7, 1991 this Court brought all the three on record as 
legal representatives; and by a further order dated November 1, 1991 by 
consent of parties appointed a retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High 
Court as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute as who would be the legal heirs to 
the estate of late Chiranjilal Shri Lal Goenka. The arbitrator entered upon 
G the reference and on the filing of pleadings by the parties framed diverse 
issues. 
Issues No. 1 and 2 related to the two Wills and were : (1) Does the 
claimant No. 1 prove. execution of the Will dated 29th Oct. 1982 and prove 
the same to be the last and genuine Will of Shri G.S. Goenka. (2) If not 
H. does she prove the execution of the Will dated 4.7.78 and prove the same 
454 
---
C.S. GOENKA v. JASJIT SINGH 
455 
... 
to be the last and genuine Will ofthe late Shri G.S. Goenka. Simultaneous A 
proceedings in the probate suit were being pursued in Bombay High 
Court, and a Single Judge expressed doubt whether the arbitrator had 
jurisdiction to decide the probate suit. Similarly, on an application made 
before the arbitrator seeking clarification, he too stated that with his 
appointment as arbitrator all the pending suits in the schedule should be B 
~ 
assumed to have been referred for arbitration and that includes the 
--
probate suit as well, but that he cannot give any clarification in that 
• 
behalf. 
An Interlocutory Application was, therefore, moved in this Court for 
clarification, and it was contended on behalf of the applicant that the c 
probate court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will to the 
applicant for due implementation of the directions contained in the Will 
It. 
as the executrix, and that this issue cannot be referred to arbitration and 
the arbitrator thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to decide Issue Nos. 1 and 
2 that had been framed by him, and that the applicant had not consented D 
to refer the probate suit for arbitration. 
The application was contested on behalf of the respondents by 
contending that proceeding the order of the Court dated November 1, 1991 
the counsel for the respondents addressed a letter to the counsel for the 
petitioner including the probate suit for reference to arbitration, and this E 
~ was to obviate the litigation pJnding in all the courts as to who were the 
legal heirs of Shri C.S.Goenka, and thereafter this court appointed the 
arbitrator] that with a view to .rut an end to the litigation in all the suits 
pending in different courts, this Court appointed the arbitrator to decide 
all the disputes in pending suits. It is, therefore, desirable that the ar-
bitrator should decide Issue Nos. 1 and 2 that have been framed. 
F 
>--
Disposing of the Application, this Court, 
HELD : 1. Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 defines 
"legal representatives" to mean a person who in law represents the estate G 
of a deceased person; and includes any person who intermeddles "ith the 
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative 
-c;. 
character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party 
so suing or sued. Order 22 rule 3 says that if one or two or more plaintiffs 
dies and the right to sue survives, the Court on an application made in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.