Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the genuineness and validity of the will and grant probate, so that the arbitrator could not adjudicate issues relating to the will even with the parties' consent.
Analysis: The dispute concerned rival claims to represent the estate of the deceased and the validity of competing wills. The Court held that the concept of legal representative is wide and includes executors and persons representing the estate, but the probate jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act is special and exclusive. Probate proceedings are governed by the statutory scheme, which requires the probate court to determine due execution and genuineness of the will, preserve the original will, and grant or refuse probate in the manner provided by law. A probate order operates in rem and is conclusive unless revoked. The Court further held that jurisdiction flows from law and cannot be created by consent or waiver, so a private arbitration reference cannot displace the statutory probate forum. Once probate jurisdiction exists, civil court or arbitrator cannot decide the proof or validity of the will.
Conclusion: The probate court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the probate dispute, and the arbitrator could not proceed to determine issues relating to the will.