Administrator pendente lite and Section 10 stay principles in disputed probate proceedings and parallel suits

An administrator pendente lite may be appointed in pending probate litigation where the will and codicils are genuinely disputed, the executors have renounced, and preservation of the estate requires protection; the court treated Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as a discretionary power and appointed a fit administrator. A stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was refused because the probate proceedings and the parallel suit were not directly and substantially the same, differing in nature and relief, so overlap in some facts did not bar interlocutory orders or justify suspension of the testamentary proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an Administrator pendente lite should be appointed to protect the estate pending determination of the validity of the Will and codicils; (ii) Whether the probate proceedings should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because of the pending suit in the Bombay High Court.

Issue (i): Whether an Administrator pendente lite should be appointed to protect the estate pending determination of the validity of the Will and codicils.

Analysis: The estate was the subject of a genuine lis in pending probate proceedings, the Will and codicils were disputed, the executors had renounced, and the property and valuable race horses required protection during the pendency of the testamentary dispute. The Court treated Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as conferring a discretionary power to appoint an administrator pendente lite where preservation of the estate and proper management demanded such appointment. It also found the proposed administrator fit for the task and noted that the property in question was not shown to be exclusively outside the testamentary disposition.

Conclusion: An Administrator pendente lite was warranted and was appointed.

Issue (ii): Whether the probate proceedings should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because of the pending suit in the Bombay High Court.

Analysis: Section 10 was held applicable only where the matter in issue in the later proceeding is directly and substantially the same as in the earlier proceeding. The probate proceedings and the Bombay suit were found to be different in nature and relief, one concerning probate and testamentary validity and the other concerning administration on intestacy. Mere overlap of some factual controversy was held insufficient to justify a stay, and interlocutory orders in the probate matter were not barred.

Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The probate court protected the estate by appointing administrators pendente lite, while declining to halt the proceedings on the basis of the parallel Bombay suit.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrator pendente lite may be appointed during pending probate litigation when the estate requires preservation and there is a bona fide dispute over the will, and a stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is unavailable unless the later proceeding involves the same matter directly and substantially in issue as the earlier suit.

---