TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a probate court had jurisdiction to stay execution proceedings pending in another court; (ii) whether, in the circumstances, the stay order should be set aside and the matter treated as an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite.
Issue (i): whether a probate court had jurisdiction to stay execution proceedings pending in another court.
Analysis: The power of a court to stay its own proceedings, whether under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code or under inherent powers, does not by itself authorise a probate court to stay proceedings pending in another court. The powers of a probate court are governed by the Indian Succession Act, and the relevant protective mechanism is the appointment of an administrator pendente lite under Section 247. Section 269 also recognises limited intervention for protection of estate property, though its application was not needed on the facts because the parties were Hindus. The probate court may, in appropriate cases, issue temporary protective orders in aid of its statutory powers, but that is different from directing a stay of execution in another court.
Conclusion: The probate court had no jurisdiction to stay the execution proceedings in the manner in which the order was made.
Issue (ii): whether, in the circumstances, the stay order should be set aside and the matter treated as an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite.
Analysis: The proper course was an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite, and, if necessary, a temporary injunction pending that appointment. The court was required to be satisfied prima facie that the will affected the property sought to be sold, without finally deciding title. Since the petition already disclosed the necessary controversy and the parties had been heard, the petition could be treated as one for appointment of an administrator pendente lite, with liberty to file further particulars and objections, and the court below could then decide the matter on the merits.
Conclusion: The stay order was set aside and the proceedings were directed to be dealt with as an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the impugned stay of execution was vacated, but the probate court was left free to consider protective relief under the Succession Act by deciding whether an administrator pendente lite should be appointed.
Ratio Decidendi: A probate court cannot, as such, stay execution proceedings pending in another court, but it may protect the estate by exercising its statutory power to appoint an administrator pendente lite and by granting temporary protective relief in aid of that jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
