SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

1. Heard Sri S. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri I. S. Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this appeal both the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that in this appeal only a legal question is involved and therefore, this appeal may be heard finally without paper book. They jointly state that the legal question involved in this appeal is as under:-

Question:

"Whether an application by a Hindu for probate of will under the provisions of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is maintainable before a Court of District Judge in the State of Uttar Pradesh?"

Facts:

3. Briefly stated undisputed facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondents, namely, Bhagwati, Ramwati, Veerwati, Rani and Phoolwati applied for probate of will dated 23.04.1975 executed by their father Sri Ramdas, resident of Nalganj, Village Lahargird, District Jhansi, who died on 28.08.1984. The aforesaid case was registered as Misc. Probate Case No.14 of 2012 in the Court of District Judge, Jhansi. The plaintiffs are the daughters while the defendants-Mangal Singh, Shaitan Singh and Amar Singh are the sons of deceased Ramdas. An objection dated 26.11.2016 was filed by the defendants-Mangal Singh and others under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') contending that in view of the Section 57, the provisions of the Act shall not apply to persons of Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain community and therefore, the application for probate being Misc. Probate Case No.14 of 2012 deserves to be dismissed. The aforesaid application of the defendants-Mangal Singh and others being paper No.112-A was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ist, Jhansi observing that there is nothing in Section 57 of the Act which prohibits applicability of the Act to persons of Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain community.

4. The present appeal has been filed by Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Smt. Vimla Gupta contending that the appellants had purchased certain land from the defendants and therefore, they filed an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as defendants. In para 10 of the affidavit it has been stated that their application was allowed and the appellants were impleaded as defendants.

Submissions:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Section 57 read with Section 213 of the Act completely bars grant of probate to a person to whom Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 are not applicable. Therefore, the court below has committed a manifest error to reject the objection of the defendants. In support of his submission he relied upon judgments of this Court in Dr. Sunil Kr. Vs. Chaitanya Prasad, (2014) 10 ADJ 642, Smt. Usha Devi Vs. Smt. Anita Devi, (2017) 11 ADJ 628, Smt. Vimla Gainder Vs. Smt. Usha Gainder, (2004) 2 AWC 1855, Administrative General, U.P. Vs. Shyam, (1997) AIR Allahabad 158, Pinto Vs. Shyam, 1978 Alld. 301, Bhaiya Ji Vs. Jageshwar, (1978) AIR Allahabad 268 and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Clarance Pias Vs. Union of India,2001 AllCJ 1137 .

6. He submits that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Satnam Kaur Vs. Satyendra Pal, (2015) 127 RevDec 498 is per incuriam as it neither considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Clarance Pias (supra) nor Section 57 and other relevant provisions of the Act. He further submits that Section 213(2) of the Act imposes restriction on entertaining any application for probate by a Court out side the areas specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 of the Act.

7. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants before me except those noted above.

8. Sri I. S. Tomar, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondents submits that there is no bar under Section 57 or Section 213 of the Act against filing of an application for probate of a will. He refers to the provisions