Uniformity in Succession, Clarity in Service: Key Takeaways from the Repealing & Amending Bill, 2025

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I5Izpv0rytwtj3WadSL_BZ--oYxI5dZh/view?usp=sharing 

 Repealing & Amending Bill, 2025

Why this Bill matters

The Repealing and Amending Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 193 of 2025, as introduced in Lok Sabha) is a periodic “clean-up” measure: it repeals enactments that have ceased to be in force/are obsolete and corrects selected formal defects through limited amendments.​

Operationally, it (i) repeals enactments listed in the First Schedule, (ii) amends enactments listed in the Second Schedule, and (iii) carries a standard savings clause to protect past acts, accrued rights/liabilities, and pending proceedings from being disturbed by repeal.

Print Page

Video article: End of mandatory Probate

 

Print Page

Advisory: The 2025 Transition from Mandatory to Permissive Probate

 

1. Executive Context: The Decoupling of Probate and Property Rights

The enactment of the Repealing and Amending Act 2025 marks the long-overdue dismantling of a colonial bottleneck that has constrained Indian succession for over a century. For decades, beneficiaries were caught in a paradoxical legal trap: they possessed the "key to the safe" (a valid Will) but were forbidden by law from opening it without completing an arduous and expensive "government course" known as probate. This mandatory gatekeeper model prioritized procedural compliance over inherent inheritance rights, creating an unnecessary barrier between heirs and their legacies.

Print Page

Whether suit filed on basis of will is tenable if probate of will is not obtained?

Sub-section (1) of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:--

"213. Right as executor or legatee when established--

(1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in [India] has granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed."

8. From a perusal of the provision aforesaid it is apparent that no right as executor or legatee can be established in any court of justice unless the 'Will' is probated by the competent court. In the present case the 'Will' was not probated on the date of institution of the suit as such the suit was itself incompetent. If the impugned order would have been passed in favour of the petitioner whole suit would have been dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Civil Revision No. 293 of 2010

Decided On: 10.01.2019

Sushila Devi Vs.  Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Birendra Kumar, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Patna 51

Print Page

When it is not necessary to obtain probate of will?

 It can clearly be seen that the present Will is executed at Yavatmal which is admittedly not covered under the territories included in Clause, (a) of Section 57. For all other territories, if the property is an immovable property, it will be governed by the general rule of Section 213 if the property is an immovable property. However, admittedly, the property in question is not an immovable property. Therefore, the Will of the nature with which we are concerned would be governed by Clause (c) of Section 57. Now referring back to Section 213, it will be clear that the general rule, wherein it has been made necessary to obtain a probate or letter of administration for raising a right as executor or legatee, by virtue of Sub-section (2) has been made applicable to wills made by any Hindu. Buddhist. Sikh or Jaina where such Wills are referable to clauses specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57. It is, therefore, clear that the Wills of the nature covered by Sub-clause (c) of Section 57 are not covered by the general rule under Section 213, which requires a probate or letter of administration to enable a person to raise a claim to a right as an executor or legatee. The Legislature by exclusion has not made the provisions of Section 213 applicable to the Wills covered under the provisions of Sub-clause (c) of Section 57.

 Citation : 2004 (4)MhLj 887 ,2004 (4)MhLj 886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 2084 of 2002

Decided On: 29.03.2004

 Prabhakar s/o Chinappa Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.R. Gavai, J.

Print Page

Whether court can entertain petition for probate even if it is not legally required?

In  Balbir   Singh   Wasu V Lakhbir singh (2005) 12 SCC503   probate   proceedings   were   filed
before the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.   In that
context while considering the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act and
the   situation   where   probate   proceedings   have   been   filed   at   a   place   not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act, in para 5 of the said judgment it was
observed thus:       
“5. The appellant's counsel then contended that Section
213 of the Succession Act which requires an executor
to obtain probate before establishing his claim under
the   Will   was   not   applicable   outside   the   Presidency
Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay.  Assuming this
to   be   correct,   we   do   not   read   Section   213   as
prohibiting the executor from applying for probate as a
matter  of prudence  or  convenience  to the  courts  in
other parts of the country not covered by Section 213.
Those   courts   are   competent   to   entertain   such
applications if made.” 
The aforesaid observations indicate that the proceedings for grant of probate
were permitted to be continued despite the same having been filed in a Court
which was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act.  Thus if the probate is
sought  as  a matter  of prudence  in  a  Court  that  is   not  covered  by  the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, such Court would be competent toentertain   the   application   for   probate.     In   the   present   case,   though   the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act would not apply to seek grant of

probate, the proceedings would have to be entertained on merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
FIRST   APPEAL     NO.   1118     OF     2015
Nitesh Shashikant Khobragade,

VERSUS
 Anil Marotrao Khobragade,

CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                         
  Dated    :   APRIL  07, 2016.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR821

Print Page

When petition for probate should be converted in to civil suit?

This   appeal   has   been   filed   under   Section   299   of   the   Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the said Act) challenging the order dated
27.07.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur
in Probate Petition No. 6 of 2012 thereby dismissing the proceedings for
issuance of probate and granting liberty to the appellant to have the claim
adjudicated before the competent Civil Court.  
The trial Court relied upon the provisions of Section 213 read
with   Section   57(c)   of   the   said   Act   while   dismissing   the   proceedings.
Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balgir Singh
Wasu (supra) in the facts of the present case if the present proceedings are
permitted to be converted into a civil suit for adjudication as the same have
become contentious, such course would serve the ends of justice.  The point
as framed is answered by holding that the trial Court ought to have itself
converted the proceedings into a civil suit for being tried on merits instead of
dismissing the same.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
FIRST   APPEAL     NO.   1118     OF     2015

Nitesh Shashikant Khobragade,  Vs   Anil Marotrao Khobragade,

CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                           
  Dated    :   APRIL  07, 2016.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR 821

Print Page

Probate for will made outside specific territory by Hindus is not required

A combined reading of Sections 213 and 57 of the Act would show that where the parties to the will are Hindus or the properties in dispute are not in territories falling under Section 57(a) and (b), sub-section (2) of Section 213 of the Act applies and sub-section (1) has no application. As a consequence, a probate will not be required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a will made outside those territories or regarding the immovable properties situate outside those territories. 

Supreme Court of India

Clarence Pais & Ors vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2001

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to obtain probate by hindus residing outside bombay?

"Will" is not executed within the territories mentioned in Section 57 (a) and (b) of the Act, provision to obtain probate is not mandatory in the light of Section 213 of the Act. Section 213 of the Act is not applicable to cases not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of the Section 57. Section 213 provides that this section shall not apply to the cases of Will and shall only apply in the cases of Will made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain where such "wills" are of classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57. Section 213 relates to grant of probate and this section will not be applicable to the 'Will' executed by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who are not residing within the territories mentioned in Section 57 (a) and.(b) of the Act

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijendra (Brijendra) Singh Yadav vs Smt. Rajkumari Yadav And Ors. on 8 July, 2005

Equivalent citations: 2005 (3) MPHT 486

Bench: S Jha

Print Page