Babulal Khandelwal & Ors vs Balkishan D. Singhvi & Ors

No.1, 2, 3 and 6. While the Respondents Nos. 2

1, 2 and 6 are the sons of the deceased, the

Respondent No.3 is their daughter and the

Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are her husband and

son respectively.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent

No.1/Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.1270 of

2005 for impleading the Appellants herein as

parties to the suit and to challenge the

alienation of two properties, one to Prolific

Consultancy Services (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and the

other to the Appellants herein. By judgment

and order dated 13th February, 2006, the

learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court

allowed the Chamber Summons and permitted the

plaint to be amended as a result whereof the

appellants herein stood impleaded as defendants

Nos.7 to 12 in the suit on the ground that they

were necessary parties to the suit, despite

their objection that the Respondent No.8 is a

company in which the Appellants were only 3

share-holders and that they were in no way

related to any of the parties to the suit.

4. The amendment of the plaint, also had the

effect of allowing the Respondent No.1 to

challenge the transactions concluded by

Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben Sanghvi and the

Appellants herein, before their death.

5. Questioning the legality of the order, Ms.

Meenakshi Arora, learned advocate, submitted

that in a suit for administration of the Estate

of a deceased, transactions concluded by the

deceased during his lifetime cannot be called

into question. Consequently, those with whom

such transactions had been entered into were

not necessary parties in such suit. Ms. Arora

submitted that the High Court had committed a

fundamental error in holding that transactions

entered into and concluded by the deceased

during their lifetime could be questioned after

their death in administration proceedings of

their Estate, and thereby erroneously impleaded 4

the appellants as parties to the administration

suit.

6. In support of her submissions, Ms. Arora

firstly referred to the decision of this Court

in Sunil Gupta vs. Kiran Girhotra, [2007 (8)

SCC 506], where an almost identical question,

as has been raised in this matter, had arisen

in respect of a probate proceeding. The

question posed in the said matter was whether a

purchaser of a property belonging to the

deceased testator should be impleaded as a

party in a probate proceeding. While answering

the said question, this Court held that since a

probate can be granted only to an Executor

appointed by a Will, a transferee of a property

during the pendency of such a proceeding is not

a necessary party.

7. As an offshoot of her main argument, Ms. Arora

submitted that, in any event, in a probate

proceeding the Court does not decide any

question of title in respect of the Estate of 5

the deceased and any order passed in the

proceedings acts as an order in rem. Ms. Arora

submitted that even on such score, the

appellants were not necessary parties to the

administration suit and their impleadment in

the suit by the High Court was wholly

erroneous. In support of her said argument,

Ms. Arora referred to and relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of

Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh &

Ors. [1993 (2) SCC 507], wherein Ms. Arora's

submissions are fully reflected with approval. Reference was also made to the decision of this

Court in (1) Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal

and Ors.,[2002 (1) SCC 33] and (2) Krishna

Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors.

[2008 (4) SCC 300], where the same views have

been expressed.

8. Ms. Arora's submissions were opposed by Mr.

Hariharan and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned

advocates, who appeared for the respondent 6

No.1. It was submitted that when the Estate of

a deceased is involved, the Court in seisin of

the proceedings relating to the administration

of the said Estate was entitled to scrutinize

transactions which had taken place in respect

of any property forming part of such Estate.

It was submitted that, in fact, such a course

of action was also pragmatic as it would

eliminate the prospect of multiplicity of

proceedings.

9. Mr. Subramonium Prasad submitted that the High

Court had quite correctly allowed the

impleadment of the appellants in the suit filed

by the respondent No.1 where all questions

relating to and involving the Estate of

Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben Sanghvi would

be resolved with finality.

10. Having considered the rival submissions of the

parties, we are unable to accept Ms. Arora's

objections to the impleadment of the appellants 7

as necessary parties in the administration suit

filed by the respondent No. 1, particularly

when both Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben

Sanghvi had died intestate.

11. It is well settled that in an administration

suit, the Court, while considering the grant of

authority to an individual having an interest

in the Estate of the deceased to administer the

Estate, has also to determine the extent of the

estate of the deceased at the time of his death

to facilitate the distribution of the estate to

all the heirs of the deceased. It is equally

well settled that during such enquiry the Court

is not called upon to determine the right and

title of the parties in the properties of the

Estate, but to ascertain the extent of the

properties of the Estate. The decision in

Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka's case (supra),

applies to probate proceedings where it has

been held that the probate Court does not

decide any question of title or even the 8

existence of the property itself. In

administration suits in respect of a person who

dies intestate, the position is different. The

Court while appointing an Administrator in an

administration suit to administer the Estate of

the decease, who dies intestate, may be

required to examine transactions involving the

properties of the Estate in order to determine

the assets of the Estate as on the date of

death of the owner thereof. Consequently, the

impleadment of persons who may be involved in

some transaction or the other concerning the

Estate of the deceased, may become necessary

for a decision in an administration suit. The

High Court has noted this fact while allowing

the prayer of the respondent No.1 for

impleading the appellants as parties to the

administration suit.

12. The decisions cited by Ms. Arora are in

relation to Probate proceedings where either

probate is to be granted or Letters of 9

Administration are to be given to an applicant

having an interest in the Estate of the

deceased. The circumstances in an

administration suit where a person dies

intestate are, however, different. The learned

Single Judge of the High Court has correctly

indicated that in an administration suit, the

dispute between the parties relating to the

title of the deceased in respect of his

properties, can be gone into in an

administration suit and that there is no bar to

a Court determining the validity of

transactions allegedly entered into by or on

behalf of the deceased, whose Estate is to be

administered. In Appendix "D" to the Code of

Civil Procedure which deals with the forms of

decrees in different suits, Form 17 indicates

the form in which preliminary decrees in

Administration Suits are to be passed.

Paragraph 3 of the Form deals with suits filed

by the next of kin of the deceased who dies

intestate, as in the instant case, and provides 10

for an inquiry to be made and account taken of

what or of what share, if any, the plaintiff is

entitled to as next-of-kin in the moveable

properties of the Estate. However, if the

moveable properties of the deceased are found

to be insufficient for carrying out the objects

of the suit, then by virtue of paragraph 10 of

the Form the Court may order an inquiry as to

what immovable property the deceased was seized

of or entitled to at the time of his death and

what encumbrances, if any, affect the immovable

property of the deceased or any part thereof.

The said inquiry, in our view might also

include the transactions with the appellants

herein which had purportedly been concluded by

the owners of the properties themselves during

their life time, in order to ascertain whether

the said properties continued to form part of

the Estate of the deceased at the time of their

death.

11

13. We, therefore, have little hesitation in

holding that the High Court had not committed

any error in allowing the amendments to the

plaint which had the effect of impleading the

appellants as parties to the administration

suit filed by the respondent No.1 and

permitting the respondent No.1 to question the

transactions entered into by the owners of the

Estate with third parties. The order of the

High Court does not warrant any interference

and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

14. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and affirm

the judgment and order of the High Court

allowing the amendments to the plaint for

impleading the appellants as parties to the

administration suit filed by the respondent

No.1 and for scrutinizing the transactions

which were alleged to have been concluded by

the parents of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4

during their lifetime.

12

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

_________________J.

(Altamas Kabir)

_________________J.

(Markandey Katju) New Delhi Dated: October 16,2008