This is an application under Rule 36 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Administered areas of Shillong and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Naspatighari, Mawprem, Shillong. A suit was instituted by the Opposite Party for declaration of his title in the court of the Assistant Dominion Agent, Khasi States against the petitioner as de­fendant No. 1 and his father as defendant No. 2, claiming certain property situated in the adminis­tered areas of Shillong. One Sabarna Debi is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the opposite party on 15-11-1938. Under the said will, the opposite party was made the sole legatee and executor. A probate was obtained by the opposite party from the Be­naras Court on 17-9-1946, in respect of the afore­said will. The suit was contested by the peti­tioner and his father on the ground that the op­posite party had no right to bring the suit. A number of issues were framed; but the Assistant Dominion Agent, Khasi States, dismiss­ed the suit on the sole ground that the opposite party failed to prove his representative character and thus was not entitled to bring the suit. On appeal, the Additional Dominion Agent, Khasi States, by his order dated 1-8-1949, upheld the judgment of the trial court and further held that the deceased was not competent to make a Will. The plaintiff-opposite-party came to this Court in revision against that order. During the pendency of that revision, the District Judge, Benaras, on being moved by the opposite party, granted a certificate on 7-1-1950, incorporating that the value of the property affected beyond the limits of the "Province" did not exceed Rs. 10,0007- and thus the certificate was effective-throughout the Indian Dominion. In the original probate granted on 17-9-1946, there was no mention of this fact. A second ap­plication was then made by the opposite party to the Benaras Court for a certificate to the effect that the probate was effective throughout India. The amended certificate was granted by the Dis­trict Judge of Benaras on 3-4-1950 and the same was forwarded to this Court. This Court, by its judgment dated 20-7-1950, dismissed the application filed in revision hold­ing that the amended certificate cannot be given retrospective effect. The amended certificate was granted by the Dis­trict Judge of Benaras on 3-4-1950 and the same was forwarded to this Court. This Court, by its judgment dated 20-7-1950, dismissed the application filed in revision hold­ing that the amended certificate cannot be given retrospective effect. This Court however, observ­ed that the finding of the lower appellate court on the merits of the case was unnecessary and will not prejudice the case of the plaintiff-oppo­site-party in any subsequent litigation. The present suit was then instituted by the opposite party in the court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills, against the petitioner and his father for a declaration of his right, title and also for possession. (2) The main contention raised by the oppo­site party in this case was that as the deceased Sabarna Debi, inherited the property from her mother - Maina Debi, who in turn inherited it from her mother - Dhani Gurungseni and as the probate had been granted by the District Judge of Benaras, the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs. The suit was contested on various grounds inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in law and the court below had no jurisdiction to try the case. It was also contended by the peti­tioner that Subedar Datta Thapa, since deceased, father of defendant No. 2, was a brother of Kali Debi, wife of Havildar Bon Bahadur, who was art-adoptive daughter of Havildar Putki Thapa -. husband of Subarna Debi Thus, he denied that Subarna Debi inherited the property in dispute from Dhani Gurungni. It was also denied that there was any lady named Uhani Gurungni. The execution of the Will was -also denied. The validity of the Probate proceed­ing before the District Court of Benaras was also -challenged and the jurisdiction of the Benaras Court to amend the certificate was contested. On 16-4-1956, the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff had 110 representative character on the strength of the Probate and the amended certificate and that the suit was not maintainable. All the other issues were not decided by him. On appeal by -the plaintiff-opposite-party, the Deputy Commis­sioner, by his judgment dated 3-5-1957, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground and directed the suit to proceed. All the other issues were not decided by him. On appeal by -the plaintiff-opposite-party, the Deputy Commis­sioner, by his judgment dated 3-5-1957, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground and directed the suit to proceed. It is against that order that the present application has been filed. (3) The first contention raised by the peti­tioner is that the opposite party has no represen­tative character inasmuch as the Benaras Court .had no jurisdiction to amend the certificate grant-«d earlier and to include the property in dispute in the Probate when it was not done so at the -earlier stage. It was also contended in this connection that the Probate cannot be effective as against the .present property in dispute inasmuch as the pro­perty was situated outside the British India, at the time when the Probate was granted, and the provisions of the Indian Succession Act do not apply to this State. Probate has been defined in the Indian Succession Act in sub-section 2 clause (f) as follows: "Probate means the copy of a Will certified under the seal of a Court of competent jurisdic­tion with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator." It is not denied that the Probate was obtained toy the opposite party on the basis of the Will, certified copy of which was attached. In the ori­ginal affidavit filed, the property was included in the list of the assets of the deceased. The Will was executed in respect of the entire assets of the deceased. The Probate was therefore granted in respect of the entire assets of the deceased. It cannot therefore be said that the Probate by itself was defective. It was contended that the Benaras Court was not competent to grant a Probate inasmuch as the property in dispute was then situated outside the British India. The •competence of the court to grant a Probate in respect of a Will is to be determined in accor­dance with the provisions of S. 270 of the Indian Succession Act, which gives power to a District Judge of the territory within which the deceased had a fixed place of abode or any property to grant probate. The •competence of the court to grant a Probate in respect of a Will is to be determined in accor­dance with the provisions of S. 270 of the Indian Succession Act, which gives power to a District Judge of the territory within which the deceased had a fixed place of abode or any property to grant probate. It is not denied in the present case that the deceased at the time of the execution of the Will was a resident within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Benaras and that some property was admittedly within his jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Benaras Court was not competent to grant a Probate in respect of the Will of the deceased. How far such a Probate will be effective as against the property lying outside British India, at that time is a matter which will have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of ^section 273 of the Indian Succession Act. (4) Reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the case of Lai Singh v. Mt. Kishen Devi reported in AIR 1929 Lah. 72 (2) (A). In that case it was neld that a Probate granted in respect of a Will cannot be effective as against the property situated outside British India; but it was also held therein that such a Probate will not be without jurisdiction and the Sompetency of the court granting the Probate has to be ascertained having regards to the provisions of S. 273. Section 273 as amended provides as follows : "Probate or letters of administration shall have effect over all the property and estate, moveable or immoveable, of the deceased, through­out the State in which the same is or are granted, and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased, and all persons holding property which belongs to him, and shall afford full indemnity to all debtors, paying their debts and all persons deli­vering up such property to the person to whom such Probate or letters of administration have been granted." It is not denied that the property is situated within the territory of the State of Assam. The Probate therefore can be effective as against the Disputed property under the provisions of S. 273 for the District Judge has granted a certificate to the effect that the value of the property out­side the State does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. Such a certificate has been granted by the District Judge of Benaras. The certificate contemplated under S. 273 has to contain merely a declaration that the value of the property and estate affected beyond the limits of the State does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. No certificate is necessary giving the properties comprising the estate of the deceased. There is nothing in section 273 which provides that such a certificate has necessarily to be given along with the Probate. Sec. 274 then enjoins upon the District Judge to send a certificate when a Probate or Letters of administration have been granted by him with the effect referred to in S. 273 to certain courts. There is no dispute that the provisions of S. 274 hove been complied with and the certificate has been forwarded to this Court. It cannot be there­fore said that the Benaras Court had no juris­diction under section 273 to grant a certificate. As soon as the certificate required under S. 273 has been granted, the Probate can be effec­tive as against the property lying beyond the limits of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and such a Probate is to be conclusive as to the representa­tive title of the plaintiff. It was then urged that as the Indian Succession Act, is not in force in the territory of the Administered Areas of Shillong, the provisions of section 273 will not apply. It is not necessary to decide this question Inasmuch as even, if this argument is accepted, not only S. 273 will not apply, but even Ss. 214 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act will not apply. There is therefore no bar to the plain­tiff-opposite-party, who claims to be the sole le­gatee under the Will to come to the Court for enforcement of his title to the property. In this view of the matter, the counsel for the petitioner did not press that contention seriously. (5) There is nothing in S. 273 requiring a certificate before which a suit cannot be brought for the enforcement of the claim under the Will. It will be necessary for this Court to examine the provisions of Ss. In this view of the matter, the counsel for the petitioner did not press that contention seriously. (5) There is nothing in S. 273 requiring a certificate before which a suit cannot be brought for the enforcement of the claim under the Will. It will be necessary for this Court to examine the provisions of Ss. 211 to 214 of the Indian Succes­sion Act. Section 211 lays down that the executor or administrator, as the case may be, of a de­ceased person is his legal representative for all purposes, and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. An exception to this general rule has been made under sub-s. 2 of S. 211 to the effect that nothing contained therein, shall vest in an exe­cutor or administrator any property of the de­ceased Hindu person which would otherwise have passed by survivorship to some person. Section 213 then provides that no right 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. This section cannot be claimed as a bar to the present suit. The Probate has been granted in respect of the Will of the deceased. It is there­fore not a case where no Probate has been grant­ed in respect of the Will under which the plain­tiff-opposite-party claims as a legatee. The only contention raised is that there is no proper cer­tificate granted in respect of the Will which is no bar to a suit. Section 214 then provides that BO court shall yet pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claim­ing on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to. Section 214 then provides that BO court shall yet pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claim­ing on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to. any part thereof, or (b) proceed upon an application of a person claim­ing to be so entitled to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of (i) a Probate or letters of adminis­tration evidencing the grant to him of adminis­tration to the estate of the deceased, or (ii) a certificate granted under section 31 or section 32 of the Administrator General's Act, 1913 (in of 1913), and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Fart X and having the debt specified or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certifi­cate Act, 1889 (VII of 1889), (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827. This section only prohibits recovery of a debt against the debtor in the absence of a Probate or Succession Certificate. In the first place, this is not a suit against the debtor so as to attract the provisions of S. 214 nor does it speak of any certificate in cases where a Probate has been granted. In the earlier litigation, this Court had rejected the revision on the ground that the certi­ficate was not obtained before filing the suit. (6) In that case, reliance was placed on the case of Kasumari Das v. Makhu reported in AIR 1927 All 227 (B). The Allahabad case was a case where a suit was brought for redemption of a mortgage by the legal representative of the de­ceased mortgagor. It was dismissed on the ground that upto that time, the plaintiff had failed to obtain a succession certificate and the suit had been brought without such a certificate. It was held that the provisions of the Succes­sion Certificate Act, which made it incumbent on the plaintiff to bring a suit against the debtor only after a certificate apply equally to a mort­gage suit. That case followed an earlier case of Patch Chand v. Md. Bakhsh reported in ILR 16 All. 259 (PB) (O) which was also a case under the Succession Certificate Act. That case followed an earlier case of Patch Chand v. Md. Bakhsh reported in ILR 16 All. 259 (PB) (O) which was also a case under the Succession Certificate Act. These cases are no authority for the pro­position that no suit can be brought for enforce­ment of the right under a Will even though a Probate has been obtained on a Will unless a succession certificate has been obtained. (7) No other point was urged, in my opi-'nion, the decision of the court below is correct and this revision has no force and is accordingly rejected without costs. The suit will proceed on other issues. V.B.B. Revision dismissed.