Interim estate administration in contested probate favors an independent receiver where executors have conflicting interests.

In a contested testamentary suit, the Court applied Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act to hold that an administrator pendente lite may be appointed where a bona fide dispute over a will requires preservation and management of the estate during litigation. Because the estate included active claims, rents, dividends and other assets needing protection, interim administration was justified. The Court further held that litigating executors and beneficiaries should not ordinarily control the estate in such proceedings, especially where they have direct financial interests and the will is under suspicious challenge. An independent Court Receiver was therefore preferred and appointed to hold and administer the estate under judicial supervision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a pending testamentary suit challenging the validity of a will, the Court should appoint an administrator pendente lite for the estate. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs, being executors and beneficiaries under the disputed will, should themselves be appointed to that office or whether an independent Court Receiver should be appointed instead.

Issue (i): Whether, in a pending testamentary suit challenging the validity of a will, the Court should appoint an administrator pendente lite for the estate.

Analysis: Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act confers a discretionary power to appoint an administrator pendente lite where there is a bona fide suit touching the validity of a will. An executor's title is in dispute once the will is contested, and the estate requires proper management during the pendency of the litigation. The Court found that a bona fide lis existed and that the estate was sizeable, involved active claims, suits, rents, dividends, and other assets requiring protection and collection. In such circumstances, the need for preservation and administration of the estate was made out.

Conclusion: Yes. An administrator pendente lite was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs, being executors and beneficiaries under the disputed will, should themselves be appointed to that office or whether an independent Court Receiver should be appointed instead.

Analysis: The Court held that although the executors had offered security, a litigating party should not ordinarily be placed in control of the estate in a contested probate matter unless all parties consent. Plaintiff No. 1 had a direct financial interest in the estate and in costs claims, plaintiff No. 4 received a substantial legacy, and the will itself was under challenge on grounds raising suspicion requiring close scrutiny. In these circumstances, impartial administration was considered preferable, and the Court Receiver, as an officer of the Court independent of the parties, was regarded as the proper person to hold the estate subject to the Court's control.

Conclusion: No. The plaintiffs were not appointed; the Court Receiver was appointed instead.

Final Conclusion: The estate was placed under neutral court control during the probate dispute, with the receiver directed to safeguard and administer the assets pending determination of the will's validity.

Ratio Decidendi: In a contested probate proceeding, where the will is genuinely in dispute and the proposed administrator has a conflicting interest, the Court may exercise its discretion under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act to appoint an impartial administrator pendente lite to preserve and manage the estate during the suit.

---