Interim protection of estate in probate can extend to controlling shareholding, but administrator pendente lite needs stronger necessity.

Pending probate proceedings, the probate court may grant interim protective orders to preserve the deceased's estate where necessity is shown. The court treated majority shareholding and the control incidents attached to it as part of the estate capable of limited protection, while recognising that the estate may include property discovered later. It also noted that protective relief should not paralyse the functioning of the companies by disabling the board. Appointment of an administrator pendente lite is permissible in law, but it requires a stronger factual foundation; on these facts, a more limited regulatory order was sufficient and displacement of the executor was not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, pending probate proceedings, the estate of the deceased including majority shareholding and control-related incidents of the companies could be protected by an interim order. (ii) Whether appointment of an administrator pendente lite was necessary at the interlocutory stage.

Issue (i): Whether, pending probate proceedings, the estate of the deceased including majority shareholding and control-related incidents of the companies could be protected by an interim order.

Analysis: Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was applied to hold that the executor is ordinarily entitled to control and administer the estate during the pendency of probate, but the probate court retains inherent power to pass suitable protective orders where necessity is shown. The court treated the deceased's shareholding and the control it conferred over group companies as an aspect of the estate capable of interim protection. It also held that the estate was not confined to only the assets disclosed in the affidavit of assets, but could extend to property discovered later. At the same time, the court declined to restrain the functioning of the board of directors in a manner that would disable the companies from operating.

Conclusion: Interim protection of the estate was warranted, and status quo was ordered in relation to the transfer of shares and other properties, together with restraint on dealing with company assets or closure of business without leave of the court.

Issue (ii): Whether appointment of an administrator pendente lite was necessary at the interlocutory stage.

Analysis: The court held that appointment of an administrator pendente lite is permissible in law, but necessity must be established on the facts. Considering the nature of the estate, the challenge to the will, and the need to preserve the properties, the court found that full displacement of the executor was not called for at that stage. Instead, a more limited regulatory order was sufficient to safeguard the estate without paralyzing the management of the companies.

Conclusion: Appointment of an administrator pendente lite was refused at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded only to the limited extent of obtaining interim protective restraints over the estate and company-linked shareholding, while the request for appointment of an administrator pendente lite was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In pending probate proceedings, the court may protect the estate by interim measures where necessity exists, but displacement of the executor by an administrator pendente lite requires a stronger factual foundation; controlling shareholding may be treated as part of the estate for limited protective purposes.

---