Probate proceedings and interim protection: injunctions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 are inappropriate; administrator pendente lite is the proper remedy.

In probate and letters of administration proceedings, injunctions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC are not available because such proceedings concern representation of the estate, not adjudication of title or rival proprietary claims. Where estate property needs protection, the proper course is appointment of an administrator pendente lite under section 34 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, with ancillary protective orders where necessary to make that remedy effective. On that basis, refusal of injunction was held erroneous and the appellate court directed immediate appointment of an administrator pendente lite.

---

---

Issues: Whether an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be granted in a probate or letters of administration proceeding, and whether the proper course is appointment of an administrator pendente lite under section 34 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881.

Analysis: Order XXXIX Rule 1 applies only where the proceeding is a suit in which property is in dispute and the property is shown to be in danger of waste, damage, alienation, or wrongful sale. A probate or letters of administration proceeding is confined to the question of representation of the estate and does not involve adjudication of title or conflicting proprietary claims, so it cannot be treated as a suit in which property is in dispute for the purpose of that rule. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite under section 34 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, and the Court may grant ancillary protective orders where necessary to make that remedy effective.

Conclusion: The refusal of injunction was erroneous; the appeal succeeded and the District Judge was directed to appoint an administrator pendente lite forthwith.

---