IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6124 OF 2008 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6846 of 2006

Babulal Khandelwal & Ors.              ..Appellant

Vs.

Balkrishan D. Sanghvi & Ors.          …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On  14th February,  2005,  the  Respondent  No.1,

Balkishan D. Sanghvi, filed suit No. 457 of

2005  in  the  Bombay  High  Court  for

administration of the Estate of his deceased

parents Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben Sanghvi,

who were also the parents of the Respondents

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

11

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

_________________J. (Altamas Kabir)

_________________J. (Markandey Katju)

New Delhi Dated: October 16,2008  

12