Probate requirement under succession law upheld where historical and territorial classifications support testamentary proof distinctions.

Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires probate or letters of administration before a right as executor or legatee can be established in court, subject to the exclusions in Section 213(2) and the territorial classifications in Section 57. The provision is not confined to Christians; it applies differently to various communities and territories, including certain Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina and Parsi wills. That historical and territorially based differentiation has a rational nexus with testamentary proof and does not, by itself, amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The challenge to the validity of Section 213 therefore fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is unconstitutional and discriminatory for requiring probate or letters of administration before a right as executor or legatee can be established, and whether the provision is invalid because of its differential application to classes of persons and territories.

Analysis: Section 213(1) bars establishment of a right as executor or legatee in a court of justice unless probate or letters of administration has been granted. Its operation is limited by Section 213(2), which excludes Muhammadan wills and, read with Section 57, excludes certain Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina wills according to the territorial classes specified therein, and also extends to Parsis after the 1962 amendment. The requirement is therefore not confined to Christians alone. The differentiation traced by the provision is historically based and linked to territorial and community-based succession rules that pre-existed the Constitution. Such historical differentiation, having a rational nexus with the subject of testamentary proof, does not by itself amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not unconstitutional on the ground of discrimination, and the challenge to its validity fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A probate requirement that applies on the basis of historically rooted and territorially defined classifications in testamentary succession is not discriminatory merely because it does not operate uniformly across all communities.

---