IMPORTANT POINT
The proceedings for probate and that for administration of estate of a person dying intestate are different.

JUDGMENT

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, 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 Courtallowed 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 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 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,1 [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 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.,2 [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.,3 [2002 (1) SCC 33] and (2) Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Ors.,4 [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 No.1. It was submitted that whe