Probate proceedings and temporary injunctions: courts may preserve disputed property to prevent dissipation pending adjudication

In probate proceedings, a High Court may invoke inherent powers, read with the scheme of the Indian Succession Act, to preserve the disputed estate through temporary injunctions. Sections 247, 266 and 300 were treated as supporting protection of the property pending adjudication, alongside section 151 CPC, so as to prevent dissipation or alteration of the subject matter. On the facts, objections based on delay, witness verification and rival title claims were treated as premature at the interlocutory stage, and restraint was justified because construction and alienation could cause irreparable prejudice and defeat eventual probate relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, while dealing with a probate petition, could grant an ad interim injunction under its inherent powers for preservation of the disputed property. (ii) Whether, on the facts, an injunction should be granted restraining construction and alienation of the property pending disposal of the probate petition.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, while dealing with a probate petition, could grant an ad interim injunction under its inherent powers for preservation of the disputed property.

Analysis: The power to preserve the estate pending probate proceedings was found to flow from the scheme of the Indian Succession Act. Section 247 contemplates protection of the estate pending adjudication, Section 266 confers probate-court powers akin to those of a civil court, and Section 300 gives the High Court concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of those powers. The Court also relied on the inherent power preserved by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and treated the restraint power as necessary to prevent dissipation or destruction of the subject matter.

Conclusion: The application for injunction was held maintainable, and the High Court was held competent to grant injunction in a probate matter.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, an injunction should be granted restraining construction and alienation of the property pending disposal of the probate petition.

Analysis: The objections based on delay in filing the probate petition, absence of verification by one attesting witness, and rival claims of title were treated as matters not fit for final determination at the injunction stage. Delay was held not fatal to probate, the verification requirement under Section 281 was treated as directory, and questions about the genuineness of the will and validity of sale transactions were held premature. Since the construction could alter or deplete the subject property, and the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury if the property were altered before final adjudication, the balance of convenience was held to favour preservation of the property. The revocation of construction sanction also supported restraint.

Conclusion: Injunction was granted restraining construction and parting with possession over the property pending disposal of the probate petition.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was decided by preserving the property in status quo during the probate proceedings, without finally determining title or the validity of the will at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi: In probate proceedings, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the estate where such restraint is necessary to prevent dissipation of the subject property and to protect the efficacy of the eventual probate decision.

---