Probate Dispute Settled: Administrator Appointed for Estate Management of Conflicting Wills from 1985 & 1993.

The HC resolved the probate dispute over conflicting Wills from 1985 and 1993 by appointing the applicant as Administrator pendente lite. The Court emphasized estate management without asset distribution, in line with section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. The Administrator is tasked with property development, preserving disputed flats until further orders. An expeditious hearing was granted to address the probate dispute swiftly.

---

---

Issues:
- Dispute over probate due to conflicting Wills dated 1985 and 1993
- Appointment of Administrator pendente lite for property development
- Interpretation of section 247 of the Indian Succession Act regarding distribution of assets
- Selection of Administrator pendente lite and their powers

Analysis:
1. The case involves a probate dispute based on conflicting Wills dated 1985 and 1993, both concerning the disposition of property at 18, Park Lane, Calcutta. The applicant seeks the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite for property development, citing similarities in the Wills except for minor discrepancies in allotment terms for the applicant's brothers.

2. The opposing parties argue against appointing an Administrator pendente lite, claiming that a development agreement includes clauses amounting to property distribution, which is prohibited under section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. They emphasize the need to settle the issues before considering such an appointment.

3. The Court notes the identical expressions in both Wills regarding property development by the applicant, with differences in the entitlement of the applicant's brothers to flats. The Court refrains from deciding on the appointment immediately to avoid prejudging the matter but acknowledges the necessity of property development as per the Wills.

4. Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act allows for the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite, emphasizing the Court's discretion to ensure proper estate management without distributing assets. The Court must exercise judicious discretion considering the estate's exigencies, preservation, and development needs.

5. The Court finds that the development cannot be delayed as per the testator's intentions and the existing development agreement. The appointment of an Administrator is crucial for managing the estate and raising finances for development, with the appointed individual acting under the Court's control.

6. While typically an impartial person is appointed as Administrator, the Court can consider appointing a party if all parties agree or if deemed suitable. In this case, the applicant's appointment as Administrator pendente lite is supported by the testator's explicit desire for property development.

7. The Court clarifies that the Administrator's role is restricted to estate management under Court supervision, with no power to distribute assets. The development activities, including potential flat sales, do not constitute distribution unless they affect the parties' rights as outlined in the Wills.

8. The Court allows the application, appointing the applicant as Administrator pendente lite for property development, with specific instructions to preserve the two disputed flats until further orders. Both parties request an expeditious hearing of the suit, which the Court grants to resolve the probate dispute promptly.

---