the appointment was properly made or not. In fact, from what has been stated above it will be seen that really speaking both the parties agreed and the learned District Judge made the appointment in pursuance of such agreement. The claim of the petitioner is that he was in possession of the disputed property and that no possession was delivered to him by the Court when the latter appointed him under S. 247, Succession Act. According to the learned advocate for him when the probate proceedings terminated the appointment of administrator pendente lite automatically came to an end, and the Court had no power to direct the petitioner to deliver possession to the successful party. In the alternative, it has been argued that the petitioner may be allowed to continue as administrator pendente lite until the disposal of the appeal which he has filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge refusing to grant a probate of the will. In the case of Smt. Pramila Bala Devi v. Jyotindra Nath Banerjee and others, reported in 28 C.W.N. 576: (A.I.R. (11) 1924 Cal. 631) it has been held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the duties of an administrator and receiver pendente lite commence from the order of appointment and, if the decree in the action is appealed from, do not cease until the appeal has been disposed of. Their Lordships further held that in the absence of any appeal the functions of an administrator pendente lite terminate with a decree pronounced in favour of a will and do not continue until the executors obtain probate. Under the express provisions of S. 247, Succession Act, under which the appointment in the present case was made every administrator pendente lite “shall be subject to the immediate control of the Court and shall act under its direction.” In the present case the petitioner was in possession of the property as an administrator pendente lite and the Court has ordered him to divest himself of that possession and make over the possession to the legal heirs of the deceased. Whether the petitioner held the property prior to his appointment under S. 247, Succession Act, and if he held the same, in what capacity he held it are questions which do not fall to be considered here. It is not that he is treated as a trespasser and is asked to deliver possession to the legal heirs. In directing him to deliver up the possession of the property the Court was dealing with him as an administrator pendente lite. In my opinion, it is clear that be cannot be heard to say that he was already in possession of the property though in a different capacity. As sopnas he agreed to become an administrator pendente lite, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, and it was quite proper on the part of the Court to pass the order which has actually been passed in the case. If the petitioner refuses to comply with the order directing him to deliver possession to the objectors opposite party, be is liable to be sued as a quasi executor de son tort.
