TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether, in pending probate proceedings before probate is granted, the Court can appoint an administrator pendente lite or a receiver to safeguard the estate; (ii) whether the facts justified the limited receivership and supervisory directions issued by the District Judge.
Issue (i): whether, in pending probate proceedings before probate is granted, the Court can appoint an administrator pendente lite or a receiver to safeguard the estate.
Analysis: The estate was not yet under the administration of any person clothed with authority from the grant of probate. In that situation, the estate lacked adequate representation, and the statutory power under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with the Court's powers under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be invoked to protect the property pending determination of the will. The objection that probate proceedings could never justify such an appointment was therefore untenable.
Conclusion: The Court held that appointment of an administrator pendente lite or receiver was permissible in appropriate probate proceedings before probate was granted.
Issue (ii): whether the facts justified the limited receivership and supervisory directions issued by the District Judge.
Analysis: The estate was large, the contesting claim was hostile, and there was a prima facie basis for the applicant's title under the registered will. The District Judge did not divest the appellants of possession or management, but only authorised supervision, inspection of accounts, inventory of movables, and deposit of a share of the income to prevent dissipation of the estate. The powers conferred were within the width of Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows powers necessary for management, protection, and preservation of property. The directions were not vague in any material sense, and any deficiency could be cured by seeking further directions below.
Conclusion: The Court held that the order appointing a limited receiver and giving supervisory directions was justified on the facts.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the District Judge's protective order concerning the estate was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: In pending probate proceedings where the estate is without adequate representation and there is a prima facie basis for protection, the Court may appoint a receiver or administrator pendente lite with powers necessary for preservation and supervision of the property.
TaxTMI 
