1. Briefly stated that the facts material for the disposal of this revision application are these:-

"The applicant and the non-applicants are brothers and sister. The applicant has filed a suit against the non-applicants for rendition of certain accounts in respect of some movable in which the applicant claims 1/4 share under the will said to have been executed by his deceased-father. The claim was resisted inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff could not sue on the basis of the will unless he obtains a probate of the will as required by the Indian Succession Act. The learned trial Judge, which tried this question as the preliminary issue, took the view that without a probate being obtained, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. There was also another issue which was also tried as a preliminary issue but the same was answered in favour of the plaintiff."

2. According to the provisions of section 213 of the Act, no right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice unless a Probate has been granted in India of the will of which the right is claimed. In sub-section (2) of section 213 of the Act however an exception has been made to the effect that the aforesaid provisions of sub-section (1) of section 213 of the Act shall not apply in the case of wills made by Mohammedans and shall apply only in the case of wills made by Hindus where such wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Act are applicable to wills made by Hindus after the 1st day of September, 1870 within the territories which were at the said date subject or which were within the local limits or the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay and also to such wills made outside the territories and limits so far as they relate to immovable property situate within the aforesaid limits. This will in question was admittedly made not within the local limits of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay but was made within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 213 of the Act were not applicable because of the specific provisions of sub-section (2) of section 213 of clauses (a) and (b) of section 57 of the Act. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision in Lachhman Singh vs. Smt. Brisbhan Dulari, 1966 MPLJ 8 and Kundanbai vs. Hazaribai, 1976 JLJ 93. Revision Allowed.