Summary
Prior probate or letters of administration were not necessary to maintain the Delhi suit asserting rights under the wills concerning Delhi property. For Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain wills, section 213’s bar was confined to the classes specified in section 57(a) and (b). The Court affirmed restoration of the plaint and the direction to try the rival testamentary and natural-succession suits together, without deciding the wills’ validity.
Issues
- Whether the absence of probate required rejection of the plaint asserting testamentary rights concerning Delhi property.
Provisions considered
- Sections 213 and 57, Indian Succession Act, 1925The probate prerequisite for the specified religious communities applied to section 57(a) and (b) classes, not the residual class in clause (c); it did not bar this Delhi suit. (¶¶ 6, 12–14)
Held
- Section 213 must be read with section 57: for Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain wills its compulsory-probate bar is limited to wills within the specified territorial classes and outside wills insofar as they concern immovable property within those territories. (¶ 6–12)
- The settled interpretation permitted reliance on a will made in Delhi concerning Delhi immovable property without prior probate. The Division Bench correctly reversed rejection of the plaint and directed common evidence in the rival suits. (¶¶ 4, 9–14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Division Bench judgment restoring the plaint and directing joint trial of the rival suits affirmed. Testamentary validity and substantive succession claims remained for trial.