COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh & Others: Supreme Court Declares Arbitration on Will Void
Probate Jurisdiction Held Exclusive to High Court
Arbitration May Proceed Only on Related Disputes
By Vishwas Kumar
New Delhi: March 27, 2026:
On 18 March 1993, the Supreme Court of India in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh & Others (I.A. No. 3 of 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1973; (1993) 03 SC CK 0052) delivered a landmark ruling on the scope of probate jurisdiction versus arbitration. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai clarified that the validity of a will cannot be adjudicated through arbitration when probate proceedings are pending before a competent court.
The dispute arose over whether the will of C.S. Goenka could be tested in arbitration proceedings despite the matter being under probate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that probate jurisdiction is exclusive, and only the Bombay High Court had authority to determine the genuineness and validity of the will. Arbitration proceedings, therefore, could not extend to deciding testamentary validity.
At the same time, the Court allowed arbitration to continue for other related disputes between the parties, thereby drawing a clear boundary between probate matters and contractual or property-related issues that may be arbitrable.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that probate jurisdiction is a matter of public policy, ensuring uniformity and certainty in succession law. By excluding arbitration from adjudicating wills, the Court safeguarded the sanctity of probate proceedings while permitting arbitration in ancillary disputes. The judgment remains a cornerstone in clarifying the limits of arbitration in inheritance and succession matters.
For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book: WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
|
|
Case Summary |
: |
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh & Others. |
|
|
Court |
: |
Supreme Court of India |
|
|
Citations |
: |
(1993) 03 SC CK 0052: I.A. No. 3 of 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1973. |
|
|
Link |
: |
|
|
|
Decided on |
: |
18 March 1993 |
|
|
Coram |
: |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai. |
|
|
Relevant Paragraphs |
: |
Para Nos.1–21 |
1. Facts of the Case:
Shri Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka died on 25 November 1985 leaving a Will dated 29 October 1982 appointing his younger daughter Mrs. Sushila N. Rungta as executrix. Radhey Shyam claimed to be his adopted son (natural son of Mangal Chand Kedia and Sita, another daughter of Goenka). Rival applications under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC were filed by Sushila (executrix), Radhey Shyam, and his wife to be substituted as legal representatives. The Supreme Court brought all three on record and later appointed Justice V.S. Deshpande (Retd. C.J., Bombay High Court) as arbitrator to settle disputes regarding legal heirs. In the arbitration, issues were framed regarding genuineness of two Wills (dated 28/29.10.1982 and 4.7.1978). The executrix sought permission to continue the probate proceedings in Bombay High Court, contending that probate jurisdiction is exclusive and cannot be referred to arbitration.
2. Law Points Involved:
Whether probate proceedings (question of genuineness and execution of Will) can be referred to arbitration; scope of “legal representative” under Section 2(11) CPC; effect of Sections 211, 217, 222–224, 273, 276, 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; and interplay of Order 22 Rules 3, 4, 10 CPC with probate jurisdiction.
3. Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
(i). Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 22 Rules 2, 3, 4, 10, 11; Section 2(11)
(ii). Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 3(f), 8
(iii). Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 211(1), 213, 217, 222–224, 227, 248, 273, 276, 294, 299
4. Judgments Referred:
(i). Inswardeo Narain Singh v. Kanta Devi, (1953) 02 SC CK 0007.
(ii). The Andhra Bank Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, (1961) 08 SC CK 0035.
(iii). Official Liquidator v. Parthasarathi Sinha, (1982) 12 SC CK 0001.
(iv). Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad, (1916) 03 PRI CK 0001.
(v). Narbheram Jivram v. Jevallabh Harjivan, (1932) 09 BOM CK 0011.
(vi). A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik, (1988) 04 SC CK 0049.
(vii). Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, (1968) 10 SC CK 0010.
(viii). Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal, (1968) 12 SC CK 0003.
(ix). Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal, (1970) 03 SC CK 0032.
(x). Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1989) 11 SC CK 0012.
(xi). Gopi Rai v. B.N. Rai, (1930) 07 AHC CK 0017.
(xii). Manmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das, (1903) 06 CAL CK 0031.
5. Obiter Dicta:
Even if parties consent, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or waiver where it is excluded by statute. Consent or estoppel cannot validate an order or reference contrary to the provisions of the Succession Act. The Probate Court alone preserves the original Will and adjudicates upon its genuineness and due execution; arbitration cannot replace statutory judicial functions.
6. Ratio Decidendi:
The Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to grant or refuse probate of a Will. The proceeding is one in rem, binding upon all persons. Arbitration cannot decide the genuineness or validity of a Will, even with consent of parties, since it would deprive them of statutory remedies including appeal under Section 299. Any award or decree contrary to this principle would be coram non judice and void.
7. Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide Issues Nos. 1 and 2 concerning proof and genuineness of the Will. The Bombay High Court, exercising probate jurisdiction, alone could decide the probate suit. The Arbitrator may proceed with other civil issues but must await the outcome of the probate case. High Court directed to decide Probate Suit No. 65/1985 expeditiously (preferably within six months).
8. Gist / Dispute & Final Decision:
(i). Dispute: Whether the Will of C.S. Goenka could be adjudicated through arbitration despite pending probate proceedings.
(ii). Decision: Probate jurisdiction is exclusive; arbitration on Will validity is void. The Bombay High Court alone to determine genuineness and validity of the Will, while arbitration may continue for other related disputes.
Read full Judgement Here:
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh & Others.
Supreme Court of India
(1993) 03 SC CK 0052: I.A. No. 3 of 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1973.
You Can Also Purchase the Book from here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart
OUR RECOMMENDATION: Check out 123 Key Judgements, as highlighted in the book, WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, for the quick research and reference purposes. Click the link here: https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/123-supreme-court-judgments-on-wills/
Keywords for SEO & Quick Search
- Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh Supreme Court case
- Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1973 judgment
- Probate jurisdiction vs arbitration India
- C.S. Goenka will dispute Supreme Court
-
- Ramaswamy R.M. Sahai judgment
- Arbitration limits succession law India
- Supreme Court inheritance law 1993 ruling