SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

CHIRANJILAL SRILAL GOENKA V. JASJIT SINGH (2001) 1 SCC 486

CHIRANJILAL SRILAL GOENKA V. JASJIT SINGH (2001) 1 SCC 486

FACT

  • The case involved a dispute over the legal heirs of Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka's estate.
  • Chiranjilal had two daughters, Sitabai and Sushila Bai.
  • Radheshyam Goenka claimed to be the adopted son of Chiranjilal.
  • The dispute arose after Chiranjilal's death, with multiple parties claiming to be his legal heirs. His daughter relying on will file a probate suit.
  • An arbitration process was initiated to settle the dispute, the arbitrator held that the agreement between Chiranjilal and Radheshyam's parents regarding Radheshyam's adoption restricts Chiranjilal and his wife to dispose of his property except to Radheshyam. 
  • This award is being challenged in the present proceeding.

ISSUE

  • The main issue revolved around whether a letter, purportedly containing terms of an agreement between Chiranjilal and Radheshyam's parents regarding Radheshyam's adoption, constituted a legally binding agreement.
  • Another issue was whether this alleged agreement, if deemed valid, restricted Chiranjilal's right to dispose of his property by will.
  • Additionally, the question of whether the letter required registration, if considered an agreement limiting Chiranjilal's property rights, was raised.

RULE

  • The court clarified that any agreement restricting property rights if deemed valid, would require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

HELD

  • The court examined whether the letter constituted a legally enforceable agreement under Section 13 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
  • It emphasized that for an agreement to restrict a person's property rights, it must be explicit and mutually accepted.
  • The court clarified that a mere unilateral offer, as in the case of the letter, did not constitute a binding agreement unless accepted by the other party.
  • The court found that the letter, even if construed as an agreement, did not explicitly restrict Chiranjilal's right to dispose of his property by will.
  • It concluded that the letter merely acknowledged Radheshyam as an adopted son without imposing any limitation on Chiranjilal's property rights during his lifetime.
  • The court rejected the argument that the letter implied a restriction on Chiranjilal's testamentary freedom, noting that it did not explicitly curtail his power to dispose of his property.
  • The court held that the arbitration award, which declared Chiranjilal's will as inoperative based on the alleged agreement in the letter, was erroneous.
  • It set aside the award and ruled that Sushila Bai N. Rungta, as per the probated will, was the legal heir of Chiranjilal.
  • The court emphasized that the letter did not constitute a legally binding agreement restricting Chiranjilal's testamentary freedom, and therefore, his will was valid.