Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
It is the second illustration of non-arbitrability, and the cleaner one, because the reason is put in a single phrase a student can carry into any answer: a judgment in rem.
Facts
The parties agreed to refer to arbitration the question whether probate should be granted.
Held
A judgment in a probate suit under the Indian Succession Act is a judgment in rem. Such a question cannot be referred to arbitration.
Reasoning
Step one — identify who is bound by the decision. A grant of probate establishes the validity of the will against all the world, not merely between the parties before the court.
Step two — consent binds only the consenting. An arbitration agreement derives its force from the agreement of the parties. Persons who never agreed cannot be bound, and a decision that must bind everyone cannot rest on the agreement of a few.
Step three — therefore the subject matter is reserved. Where the law requires a determination good against the world, it entrusts that determination to a court, and a reference is incompetent.
Exam use
It opens: Which matters cannot be referred to arbitration, and why?
Give the two-line test, which is what earns marks: a dispute is not arbitrable where the relief operates in rem, or where the statute vests the power in a designated court. Probate answers the first limb; winding up in Haryana Telecom answers the second.
Pair it with Sukanya Holdings to complete the s. 8 picture: Sukanya is about the scope of the agreement, these cases about the capacity of an arbitrator to decide the subject at all. An answer that confuses the two loses the point.
It does not decide that no dispute among the same family members is arbitrable — a dispute about the division of property between them, once title is established, is a different matter. It is the grant of probate itself that is reserved.