Probate Court's protective jurisdiction under Section 247 extends to estate preservation, majority committee action, but not orders against non-parties.

Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act was treated as conferring broad protective jurisdiction on the Probate Court to preserve a deceased person's estate during a testamentary dispute, including interim directions through an administrator pendente lite. The Court also noted that no unanimity requirement governed the duly constituted administrators' committee, so majority decisions could bind participating parties where no express restriction existed. However, the Court held that coercive restraining orders could not be made against companies that were not parties to the probate proceeding, as the Court's jurisdiction did not extend to strangers without impleadment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Probate Court had jurisdiction under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to protect and preserve the estate by directing implementation of the Administrators Pendente Lite Committee's majority decisions. (ii) Whether the Administrators Pendente Lite Committee could validly act and bind the parties by majority decision. (iii) Whether the Probate Court could pass restraining orders against companies which were not parties to the testamentary proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether the Probate Court had jurisdiction under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to protect and preserve the estate by directing implementation of the Administrators Pendente Lite Committee's majority decisions.

Analysis: Section 247 was held to confer a broad protective jurisdiction on the Probate Court to preserve the estate of the deceased during pendency of the testamentary dispute. The Court held that the administrator pendente lite remains under the immediate control of the Court and that the Court may issue appropriate interim directions to ensure preservation of the estate. The Court also held that the defendants' applications were maintainable and that no requirement of Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 displaced the special procedure under the testamentary law.

Conclusion: The Probate Court had jurisdiction to grant interim protection and to direct implementation of the Committee's decisions insofar as the estate was concerned.

Issue (ii): Whether the Administrators Pendente Lite Committee could validly act and bind the parties by majority decision.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Committee was constituted as a joint administrative body, but no statutory or judicial mandate required unanimity. The Court relied on the prior functioning of the Committee, the absence of any express restriction against majority action, and the practical need to avoid stalemate in estate administration. It further held that the parties had subjected themselves to the Committee's jurisdiction and could not later challenge its majority decisions after participating in the process.

Conclusion: The Committee's majority decisions were held binding and capable of implementation.

Issue (iii): Whether the Probate Court could pass restraining orders against companies which were not parties to the testamentary proceeding.

Analysis: The Court held that its jurisdiction did not extend to passing coercive orders against non-party companies or strangers to the proceeding. Even though the estate's controlling shareholding and voting rights could be protected through directions to the parties and the Committee, direct injunctions against the companies themselves were impermissible in the absence of their impleadment and adjudication of their rights.

Conclusion: The Court refused relief against the non-party companies and held that no order could be passed against them in the probate proceeding.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted to preserve the estate and to require implementation of the Committee's majority decisions, but the Court declined to exercise coercive jurisdiction against companies that were not parties to the proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: A Probate Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 may issue interim directions necessary to preserve and protect the estate through an administrator pendente lite, and a majority decision of such a duly constituted committee may bind the parties where no unanimity requirement is prescribed, but no coercive order can be made against a stranger to the proceeding.

---