A will executed by a Hindu on 11th April 1974 at Akola, which is not governed by clauses (a) or (b) of section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, but by clause (c) of section 57, is not covered by section 213(1) of the Act, and hence the applicant is not required to obtain probate to establish her right as a legatee under the will.

Headnote:
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 213 - SECTION 57 - PROBATE - NOT REQUIRED FOR WILL NOT COVERED BY SECTION 57(A) OR (B) - WILL EXECUTED BY HINDU ON 11TH APRIL 1974 AT AKOLA - NOT GOVERNED BY SECTION 57(A) OR (B) BUT BY SECTION 57(C) - HENCE NOT COVERED BY SECTION 213(1) - APPLICANT NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PROBATE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT AS LEGATEE.
Fact of the Case:

Padmabai, a Hindu woman, executed a will on 11th April 1974 bequeathing her properties to the applicant. During the pendency of a reference proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, Padmabai died on 19th June 1974. The applicant applied to be brought on record as the legal representative of Padmabai based on the will. The Joint District Judge directed the applicant to obtain probate within three months.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the will in question was not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and hence it was not necessary for the applicant to obtain probate under section 213(1) of the Act. The court set aside the order of the Joint District Judge directing the applicant to obtain probate.
Issues: Whether the will executed by Padmabai on 11th April 1974 was covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and hence required probate under section 213(1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and held that section 213(1) would apply to a will executed by a Hindu only if such a will is governed by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Act. The court further interpreted section 57 and held that the will in question was not governed by clauses (a) or (b) but by clause (c) of section 57, and hence it was not covered by section 213(1).
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Joint District Judge directing the applicant to obtain probate.

JUDGMENT-Two fields bearing S. Nos. 10/2 and 10/2B situated in village Shivar in the district of Akola belonged to Padmabai widow of Rukbabsa Junankar. These fields were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act) for the purposes of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapith and an award was made in favour of Padmabai on 30th March 1971, awarding her certain compensation. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded to her, Padmabai asked for a reference under section 18 of the Acquisition Act and consequently the matter was referred to the Civil Court and came before the Joint District Judge at Akola. When that reference was pending in the District Court, Padmabai made a will on 11th April 1974 under which she bequeathed some immoveable properties belonging to her to some persons other than the present applicant. However, by residuary clause in the will she bequeathed all other moveable and immoveable properties belonging to her to the present applicant. During pendency of the proceedings before the District Court, Padmabai expired on 19tb June 1974. The applicant by her application dated 18tb July 1974 applied for her name being brought on record in place of that of Padmabai. In this application the applicant claimed to be the legal representative of Padmabai on the strength of the said will. The learned counsel on behalf of the non-applicant by his reply endorsed on this application stated that the State had no objection to bring the names of heirs of the deceased on record, but the right to claim compensation was denied in the absence of probate or Letters of Administration from the competent Court. By his order dated 7th February 1975 the learned Joint Judge directed applicant to obtain a probate within three months and stayed the proceedings for that period. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

2. Mr. Choube, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that it was not necessary for the applicant to obtain probate as directed by the learned Joint Judge, inasmuch as the will on which the applicant based her claim, was not covered by the provision of section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Mr. Choube, relying on sub-section (2) of section 213, submitted that the will in question was not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Act and hence it was a will of which it was not necessary to obtain probate under sub-section (1) of section 2U. This contention of Mr. Choube must be upheld for the following reasons.

3. There is no dispute that Padmabai, the executants of the will, was a Hindu. Now sub· section (1) of section 213 of the Act provides that no right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which right is claimed or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed. It would thus appear that if an executor or legatee claims anything under a will, he has to obtain a probate or letter of administration, if he wants to establish his right in any Court of Justice. However, this general provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 213 is subject to certain exceptions which are laid down in sub-section (2) of that section. Sub-section (2) provides that section 213 shall not apply in case, of wills made by Mohammadans but it shall apply only in case of wills mli4e by any Hindu. Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina where such wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 51. For the purpose of this revision application it is not necessary to consider clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 213. It would, therefore, be clear that section 213 or for the matter of that sub-section (1) of section 213 will apply in the case of a will executed by a Hindu only if such a will is gover

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(Bom) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(A. A. Ginwala J.) JYOTI W/O JAGDISH SINGHAI -Applicant. Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -Opponent. Civil Revn. Appln. No. 387 of 1975Decided on 16-1-1979Advocate AppearedFor applicant – K.A. Choube. For opponent - G. A. Paonikar and R. B. Masodkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleaders.