Administrator pendente lite may be appointed in contested probate disputes to protect a large, mixed estate pending adjudication.

During contested probate proceedings, the Court may exercise discretionary power under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to appoint an administrator pendente lite where the estate is large, mixed, and effectively needs neutral protection pending adjudication. Here, serious challenges to the will, the executor's conduct, and his control over assets and controlling shareholding justified temporary intervention. The Court held that the estate should be placed under neutral interim administration, and the named executor could be displaced for that limited purpose. Joint administrators pendente lite were appointed, while the executor's substantive rights remained open for final determination in the testamentary proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, during the pendency of contested probate proceedings, an administrator pendente lite should be appointed to take charge of the deceased's estate and controlling shareholding. (ii) Whether the named executor, being the sole or principal beneficiary and facing serious challenge to the will and his conduct, should be displaced in favour of joint administrators.

Issue (i): Whether, during the pendency of contested probate proceedings, an administrator pendente lite should be appointed to take charge of the deceased's estate and controlling shareholding.

Analysis: Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 confers a discretionary power on the Court to appoint an administrator pendente lite where a suit or proceeding touching the validity of a will or probate is pending. The estate was found to be vast, mixed, and substantially represented by controlling shareholding in group companies. The Court held that, in such circumstances, where the estate is effectively in medio and there is serious contest over the testamentary documents, the absence of a temporary neutral representative creates a real necessity for protective intervention.

Conclusion: The appointment of an administrator pendente lite was warranted and was made in favour of the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether the named executor, being the sole or principal beneficiary and facing serious challenge to the will and his conduct, should be displaced in favour of joint administrators.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the executor's title and control were under serious challenge, including allegations of suspicious circumstances, undue influence, and doubtful testamentary capacity, and that the executor had already assumed control of assets and company shareholding on the strength of an unprobated will. The Court treated the executor's beneficial interest and the unresolved disputes concerning prior mutual wills, together with the need to safeguard the estate, as sufficient reason to suspend his management during the probate proceedings. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to entrust administration to neutral persons rather than leave the estate in the executor's hands.

Conclusion: The named executor was displaced for the limited purpose of interim administration, and joint administrators pendente lite were appointed.

Final Conclusion: The probate estate was placed under temporary neutral administration pending final decision in the testamentary proceedings, while the executor's substantive rights remained subject to adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a probate proceeding involves a serious and bona fide challenge to the will and to the executor's appointment, and the estate is large, mixed, and effectively without adequate neutral representation, the Court may exercise its discretion under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to appoint an administrator pendente lite to preserve the estate pending final adjudication.

---