Administrator pendente lite may be appointed to preserve an estate during testamentary litigation where waste or diversion is shown.

Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act was treated as an enabling provision allowing a testamentary court to appoint an administrator pendente lite during pending litigation over a will or grant, where interim protection of the estate is needed. The court also held that a party to the testamentary proceedings is not excluded from such appointment, subject to the statutory limits. On the facts, a prima facie risk of waste or diversion was shown by disputes over the estate, interference with business assets, and withdrawals from estate income, so interim management was justified and the appointment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testamentary court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; (ii) Whether the appointment of the administrator pendente lite was justified on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the testamentary court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Analysis: Section 247 is an enabling provision authorising the court, pending adjudication of a suit touching the validity of a will or grant of probate or letters of administration, to appoint an administrator of the estate. The provision permits the court to act where circumstances show that protection and preservation of the estate require interim management, and it does not exclude appointment of a party to the testamentary proceedings, subject to the limitations specified in the section.

Conclusion: The testamentary court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator pendente lite.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of the administrator pendente lite was justified on the facts.

Analysis: The material on record showed a long-standing dispute over the estate, allegations of interference with the hotel business, substantial withdrawals from the estate income, and transactions closely preceding the testator's death that suggested an attempt to divert assets. The court found prima facie that the appellant was dealing with the estate in a manner detrimental to its preservation and that interim management was necessary to safeguard the estate pending final adjudication of the rival testamentary claims.

Conclusion: The appointment of the administrator pendente lite was justified.

Final Conclusion: The order appointing an administrator pendente lite was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In pending testamentary litigation, the court may appoint an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 where the facts disclose a prima facie need to preserve the estate from waste or dissipation.

---