JUDGMENT PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. 1. CHALLENGE is to the order no.115 dated March 15, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore by rejecting the application dated November 5, 2009 filed by the petitioner, Smt. Sukti Sanyal in connection with O.S. No.146 of 2002. 2. SINCE the two applications have arisen out of the same order and common question is involved in the two applications, the two applications have been heard together and these are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am now discussing the application bearing C.O. No.1247 of 2010. The trust properties of Biren Roy Trust are the subject matters in the application. Late Biren Roy was the sole trustee in respect of the properties by a deed of trust dated January 6, 1965 up to January 21, 1993. As per terms and conditions of the trust, Smt. Meghamala Roy would be the next sole trustee with full powers and authorities including the authority of appointing or nominating a trustee. Thereafter, Smt. Meghamala Roy (since deceased) appointed the petitioner as the sole executrix of a Will executed by Smt. Meghamala Roy in respect of property of the trust. The petitioner filed a probate case. It was being contested and as such the said probate case was converted into O.S. No.146 of 2002 and the said suit is being contested by the defendants. The executrix of the Will was to perform the duties of maintenance, management and protection of the trust properties as per Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. Since the said trust being a public charitable trust, the then official trustee decided in July, 2002 that all charities, appointments, expenses, etc. should be first approved by the different trustee before disbursement and such procedure was also followed by the subsequent two official trustees, namely, Sri Radhey Shyam Dutta and Sri M. M. Banerjee. The executrix, that is, the petitioner had to expend money for proceeding with the probate case, subsequently, renumbered as O.S. Case and several other litigations and for that reason the executrix had to expend certain money. She had to pay fees for the advocates in different suits/cases. The bills submitted by the executrix were approved by the official trustee but the present official trustee on taking charge of office had arbitrarily stopped reimbursement of legal expenses incurred with regard to the Biren Roy Trust. She had to pay fees for the advocates in different suits/cases. The bills submitted by the executrix were approved by the official trustee but the present official trustee on taking charge of office had arbitrarily stopped reimbursement of legal expenses incurred with regard to the Biren Roy Trust. The petitioner paid such expenses, she is entitled to get reimbursement of the same. The petitioner filed an application dated November 5, 2009 before the learned District Judge praying for reimbursement of the legal expenses and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application was been preferred. 3. NOW, the question is whether the learned District Judge is justified in rejecting the petition dated November 5, 2009 for reimbursement. 4. UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the O.S. No.146 of 2002 is pending for disposal and the petitioner has become the plaintiff of that suit. When the probate case was being contested, the petitioner has submitted bills showing the legal expenses in connection with the Biren Roy Trust Estate and also for obtaining the grant of probate of the Will of late Meghamala Roy regarding the said Biren Roy Trust which is of a public charitable trust. From the materials on record, I find that the official trustee has been appointed as administrator of the said trust since it was a public charitable trust. So, the administrator has certain functions in the matter of maintenance, protection and distribution of the assets of the said trust and according to Section 32 of the Indian Trusts Act, he is entitled to take all the necessary steps for the preservation and protection and also making payment in respect of the matters which the trust is bound to make payment. According to Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the administrator is permitted to do all such acts save and except the distribution of assets which has to be performed by the executrix of the Will or the executor of the Will, that is, the plaintiff of the suit. According to Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, the executor or the administrator of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. According to Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, the executor or the administrator of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. So far as the expenditure is concerned, as soon as an administrator is appointed, according to Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 during pendency of the suit touching the validity of the Will of a deceased person, the administrator shall have all the rights and powers of a general administrator, other than right of distributing such estate, and such administrator shall be subject to the immediate control of the Court and shall act under its direction. Therefore, according to Section 247 of the said Act of 1925 the administrator is vested with the power of general administration, save and except the right of distributing such estate. 5. BUT, in the instant case, I find that though the administrator was appointed in the year 2002 the plaintiff / petitioner herein is expending money as per her claim and she has submitted bills for reimbursement of the same. 6. MR. S. P. Roychowdhry, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refers to different provisions of Section 32 of the Indian Succession Act, Section 211, 247, 321 of the Indian Succession Act and thereafter he submits that according to the provisions of Section 321 of the said Act of 1925 expenses of obtaining probate, or letters of administration, including the costs incurred for or in respect of any judicial proceedings that may be necessary for administering the estate, shall be paid next after the funeral expenses, death-bed charges. Thus, he submits that the plaintiff is entitled to get reimbursement of the bills submitted by her for proceeding with the probate case first and then defending the said O.S. No.146 of 2002. MR. Roychowdhury also submits that since the lawyers appearing for the private persons like the petitioner, one generally does not submit bill or receipt in respect of his fees and other remuneration. The learned District Judge should have accepted the bills as shown by the petitioner before him.Mr. Ghosh raises strong objection against such submission of Mr. MR. Roychowdhury also submits that since the lawyers appearing for the private persons like the petitioner, one generally does not submit bill or receipt in respect of his fees and other remuneration. The learned District Judge should have accepted the bills as shown by the petitioner before him.Mr. Ghosh raises strong objection against such submission of Mr. Roychowdhury and submits that when an administrator has been appointed, the administrator is to take the necessary steps with regard to the expenses for obtaining a probate in respect of the Will left by Meghamala Roy. The administrator was appointed in 2002 and so since then the administrator is vested to take all the necessary steps for proceeding with the said suit and he is to incur expenses. The petitioner is not permitted to do the same. In support of his contention Mr. Ghosh relies upon the decision in the case of Rajendra Singh Lodha Vs. Ajoy Kumar Newar and ors. reported in (2010) 4 WBLR$ (Cal) 793. Thus, he submits that the administrator is to do the needful with regard to the said suit for obtaining the probate. 7. THE learned District Judge has discussed the matters in details and I find that he has rightly concluded that according to Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the administrator appointed is the proper person to take all the necessary steps for proper administration of the estate till the probate is obtained and as soon as the probate is obtained the executor (that is, the petitioner) is to take the necessary steps for proper distribution of the assets according to the probate granted by the Court. Till such time of obtaining the probate in respect of the Will, the administrator who is vested with all the powers and administration of the estate of the deceased is to do the necessary expenses and without his consent the petitioner had no right to claim any expenditure. She had no right to make payment independently without the consent of the administrator. THErefore, with due respect to Mr. Roychowdhury, I am of the view that the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. THE order impugned should, therefore, be sustained. There is nothing to interfere with it. 8. ACCORDINGLY, this revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the above findings, this application also dismissed. Roychowdhury, I am of the view that the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. THE order impugned should, therefore, be sustained. There is nothing to interfere with it. 8. ACCORDINGLY, this revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the above findings, this application also dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.