Disputed Will and probate challenge: mandatory interim orders cannot force compliance before validity and certainty are decided.

Where the validity and certainty of a Will remain under probate challenge, a court should not compel implementation of disputed testamentary stipulations by mandatory interim order. The Supreme Court noted that ambiguity on the face of a Will attracts the statutory bar on extrinsic evidence, and that a bequest lacking definite intention is void for uncertainty. It held that the High Court should first have adjudicated the Will's enforceability on merits before directing compliance, because such interim directions could prejudice the pending probate appeal and force performance of provisions whose legality remained unresolved. The mandatory interim orders were set aside, and the probate appeal was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in passing mandatory interim orders directing implementation of the disputed testamentary stipulations while the probate appeal remained pending, and whether such orders could stand when the validity and certainty of the Will were still under consideration.

Analysis: The disputed Will was under challenge in probate proceedings, and the statutory scheme under Section 81 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 excludes extrinsic evidence where there is ambiguity on the face of the Will, while Section 89 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 renders a bequest void for uncertainty if it does not express any definite intention. In that setting, the High Court ought first to have examined the validity and enforceability of the Will before directing compliance with its stipulations. Mandatory interim directions that effectively compelled performance of the Will were held to be improper because they could prejudice the pending appeal and force implementation of provisions whose legality and certainty remained in issue. The order of the trial court was also held to merge in the eventual appellate decision, making it necessary for the appellate court to decide the controversy on merits before any such directions could be given effect.

Conclusion: The mandatory interim orders were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was directed to dispose of the probate appeal expeditiously while keeping the effect of interim orders in view.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity or certainty of a Will is still sub judice, a court should not, by mandatory interim order, compel implementation of its disputed terms; the issue must first be adjudicated on merits in accordance with the statutory rules governing ambiguity and uncertainty in testamentary dispositions.

---