1932 (8) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of Court Receiver as administrator pendente lite.
2. Allegations of fraudulent conspiracy and undue influence in obtaining the will.
3. Validity and necessity of administration pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act.
4. Fitness and suitability of the proposed administrator pendente lite.
5. Preservation and management of the deceased's estate during litigation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of Court Receiver as administrator pendente lite:
The defendants sought the appointment of the Court Receiver as the administrator pendente lite for the estate of the deceased, Putlibai, and an injunction against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who are the executors of Putlibai's will, opposed this motion. The court acknowledged that the petition for probate had turned into a testamentary suit due to the defendants' caveat and affidavit, indicating a bona fide dispute over the will's validity.

2. Allegations of fraudulent conspiracy and undue influence in obtaining the will:
The defendants alleged that the will was obtained by the plaintiffs through fraudulent conspiracy, undue influence, coercion, and importunity, rendering it void. They claimed that the testatrix was in bad health, kept in duress, and made to execute a will under pressure. The plaintiffs denied these allegations, asserting that the testatrix was a free agent who intentionally excluded the defendants from benefiting under her will. The court noted that these allegations and counter-allegations would need to be examined during the hearing of the suit.

3. Validity and necessity of administration pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act:
The defendants applied for administration pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, which allows the court to appoint an administrator pending a suit regarding the validity of a will. The court emphasized that such an appointment is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. The court must be satisfied that there is a bona fide suit pending and that there is a necessity for such a grant. The court referred to precedents indicating that the appointment of an administrator pendente lite is generally made when there is a bona fide dispute and a necessity for preserving the estate.

4. Fitness and suitability of the proposed administrator pendente lite:
The court considered the fitness of the proposed administrator. The plaintiffs, who are the executors, argued against the appointment of an external administrator, offering to provide security. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs' interests might conflict with their duties, given the allegations against them and their significant benefits under the will. The court decided that appointing an impartial person, such as the Court Receiver, would be in the best interests of all parties.

5. Preservation and management of the deceased's estate during litigation:
The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding and preserving the estate, which was of considerable value and included various assets such as government securities, shares, immovable properties, and claims under mortgages. The court noted that proper arrangements were necessary to manage the estate, recover rents, dividends, and interest, and handle pending suits. The court concluded that appointing the Court Receiver as the administrator pendente lite would ensure impartial management and preservation of the estate during the litigation.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the appointment of the Court Receiver as the administrator pendente lite and granted an injunction against the plaintiffs. The costs of all parties were to be covered by the estate of the deceased, Putlibai. The court also directed that plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 should remain undisturbed in their occupation of the Ridge Road house and its contents, including the motor car, subject to the rights and contentions of the parties. The receiver was instructed not to take possession of the family idols until further orders from the court.