Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This is defendant’s appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code arising from judgment and decree dated 8.5.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 191 arising out of Original Suit No. 503 of 1997.

3. The only substantial question of law on which this appeal was admitted is question (D) which reads as under:

“Whether in view of provisions of Sections 213 and 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 plaintiff could get any relief as she has not obtained or even applied for probate or letter of administration on the basis of will (33Ka) relied upon by her.”

4. At the outset, learned counsel for parties could not dispute that provisions of probate are not at all applicable in State of U.P. and therefore, the aforesaid question has to be answered against appellant.

5. In Mst. Janki Bai v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1938 All 640, Court held that Section 213 of Act, 1925 is no bar and it was not necessary to take out probate of ‘’Will’ of deceased when ‘’Will’ was made after 1.1.1927 and Section 57(C) apply.

6. Considering Sections 213 and 57 of Act, 1925 in Nobat Ram v. Gayatri Devi, 1968 ALJ 69, Court held that there is no requirement of probate in respect to a ‘’Will’ covered by Section 57(C) of Act, 1925. Similar View was taken in Pitmo v. Syam Singh, AIR 1978 All 301 and Bhaiya Ji v. Jageshwar Dayal Bajpai, AIR 1978 All 268.

6. In Administrator General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad v. Late Dharamvir alias Mohd. Haroon (supra), Court said:

“It is very clear that the bar contained in Section 370 of the said Act is attracted in a case to which Section 370 of the said Act is attracted in a case to which Sections 212 and 213 of the Act apply. Section 212 of the Act speaks about the right to intestate’s property and, therefore, does not apply in the facts of the present case. Sub-clause 2(1) of Section 213 read with Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 57 of the Act applies where the parties to the Will are Hindus and the properties in dispute are in Bengal, Bombay and Madras. Admittedly, the properties here are situate at Mainpuri within the State. Section 213 (2) of the Act has to be read with Section 57 of the same Act. A probate is not necessary for establishment of a right under a will by a Hindu where the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 are not attracted. Since the Will in question could not fall under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57, Section 213 has no application to it and consequently the bar contained in Section 370 of the Act is also not attracted.”

7. A Division Bench of this Court also reiterated the same view in Smt. Bimla Gaindher v. Smt. Usha Gaindher and another (supra). Recently a Single Judge has also reiterated it in Civil Revision No. 343 of 2015 (Pratipal Singh v. Jagtar Singh) decided on 7.4.2016 and S.C.C. Revision No. 124 of 2016 (Fazalur Rehman v. Gopal Sahu) decided on 28.3.2016.

8. In Fazalur Rehman v. Gopal Sahu (supra) Court observed that obtaining of probate on a ‘’Will’ is not mandatory for a Will to be set up in respect of property located within the State of U.P.

9. In Clarence Pais and others v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SCC 1151, Court considered Section 213 and said:

“The effect of Section 213(2) of the Act is that the requirement of probate or other representation mentioned in sub-section (1) for the purpose of establishing the right as an executor or legatee in a Court is made inapplicable in case of a will made by Muhammadans and in the case of wills coming under Section 57(c) of the Act. Section 57(c) of the Act applies to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, on or after the first day of January, 1927 which does not relate to immovable property situate within the territory formerly subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction