CHIRANJILAL SHRILAL GOENKA Vs. JASJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aforesaid appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 734 of 1971 filed by the deceased Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka of Bombay challenging the order No. 19 of 1971 dated 8th February, 1971 passed by the Gold Control Administrator, New Delhi, Deceased appellant challenged confiscation of gold by the custom authorities under Gold Control orders by filing writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Against that order, the aforesaid appeal is filed. Pending appeal, appellant (Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka) died on 24th November, 1985. A dispute arose-as to who is the legal heir of the deceased. Firstly, one of the daughters. Sushila Bai N. Rungta claimed under a Will dated 29th Oct., 1982 and secondly, Radheshyam Goenka claimed as adopted son and thirdly, Smt. Raj Kumari R. Goenka wife of adopted son claimed independently. Keeping the question of ritght, tile and interest in the property open, for continuing the proceedings, all the three were ordered to be brought on record by order dated 7-10-1991. It was also ordered that appeal be listed to consider the possibility of appointing an artibrator by common consent or by orders of the Court for bringing about a settlement. Thereafter, to settle the dispute as to who would be the legal heirs to the estate of Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka, this Court passed an order on 1-11-1991 appointing Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpande, retired Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, as arbitrator which is reproduced here-under-

(2.) For deciding the dispute, on 10th April, 1992 the Arbitrator framed issues as under-

(3.) For issues Nos. 1 and 2 it was pointed out that probate suit is pending in the Bombay High Court, wherein the learned Judge has expressed doubt whether arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide probate suit. Hence, IA No. 3 of 1992 was filed before this Court to seek clarification. By judgment and order dated 18th March, 1993 this Court held that arbitrator cannot proceed with probate suit and decide issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed by him and the High Court was requested to proceed with the probate suit No. 65 of 1985. Till the decision in the probate suit, the arbitrator was requested not to decide issue Nos. 1 and 2. The Court observed that it would be open to the arbitrator to proceed with other issues and would conclude his findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of result in the probate proceedings and make the award according to law.