Testamentary jurisdiction cannot enforce collateral agreements inconsistent with a Will; Section 302 is limited to estate administration.

Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 empowers the testamentary court to issue directions only for the estate and its administration after probate or letters of administration, so it cannot be used to enforce a family arrangement or development agreement that conflicts with the Will. Because probate is a judgment in rem, the Executor must administer the estate according to the Will, and any inconsistent collateral agreement must be pursued in independent proceedings. The Court also held that the earlier High Court order on maintainability did not finally decide the substantive issue and therefore did not operate as res judicata. The impugned judgment was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testamentary court could invoke Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to enforce a family arrangement or development agreement and direct the Executor to act on terms inconsistent with the Will; (ii) Whether the earlier order of the High Court on maintainability operated as res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether the testamentary court could invoke Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to enforce a family arrangement or development agreement and direct the Executor to act on terms inconsistent with the Will.

Analysis: Section 302 empowers the High Court, after probate or letters of administration have been granted, to issue directions to the executor or administrator only in regard to the estate or its administration. A probate binds the whole world and is a judgment in rem, so the Executor must administer the estate according to the Will. Where a settlement or family arrangement is inconsistent with the Will, the Will prevails. A collateral development agreement cannot be enforced in testamentary jurisdiction, and any dispute arising from such an agreement must be worked out in independent proceedings.

Conclusion: Section 302 did not authorize enforcement of the collateral agreement, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order of the High Court on maintainability operated as res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier order only addressed whether the Chamber Summons could be entertained and did not finally decide the substantive question whether the Executor could be discharged on the facts alleged. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and does not attract res judicata.

Conclusion: The earlier order did not operate as res judicata.

Final Conclusion: The testamentary court could not enforce the development agreement under Section 302, and the appeal succeeded with the impugned judgment set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In testamentary jurisdiction, directions under Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are confined to the estate and its administration under the Will, and cannot be used to enforce a collateral agreement that conflicts with the Will.

---