JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that will dated 23rd July,. 1958 alleged to have been executed by one Sri Fateh Chanel in favour of defendant No. I was void and ineffective and forged and for possession over bhumidhari plot No. 15-12. It is not disputed before me that Stet. Gayatri Devi plaintiff is the daughter of the executant of the will. It appears that this Fatal Chand had executed three successive wills. Through the third will he had given the property in dispute to his daughter and had given some property to the defendant also. The defendant No. 1 again got a fourth will executed on 23rd July, 1958 through which it is alleged that the property in dispute was given to him. Both the courts have held that the will dated 23rd July, 1958 was not a genuine will. Whether this will was a genuine will or not is a question of fact and the concurrent findings of the two courts below cannot be ignored. It is well settled 'that who relies on the last will of a testator has a heavy burden to discharge. I have looked into the case and find that the appellants have not discharged this heavy burden. The plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased and the will which stands in her favour stands admitted by the defendants. In such circumstance I am of Opinion that she has rightly been granted the decree in her favour. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, has argued one legal point not taken before the courts below to the effect that unless the third will upon which the plaintiff has based her claim was probated the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1471. This argument of the learned counsel completely loses sight of Section 213 sub-clause (2) of the Indian Succession Act which has to be read with Section 57 of the same Act. Section 213 and relevant portion of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act are as follows: 213. Hem Nolini Judah v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1471. This argument of the learned counsel completely loses sight of Section 213 sub-clause (2) of the Indian Succession Act which has to be read with Section 57 of the same Act. Section 213 and relevant portion of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act are as follows: 213. (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. (2) This section shall not' apply in the case of wills. Mad, by Muhammadans, and shall only apply in the case of wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina where such wills are -of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57. 57. The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply - (a) to and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the-first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situate within those territories or limits; and * * * * 3. The Supreme Court decision referred to above by the learned counsel interpreted sub-clause (I) of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, the parties to that case being Christians. It has no application in the circumstances of this case where the parties ' arc Hindus. In the present case sub-clause (2) of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act applies which makes it abundantly clear that the properties in dispute not being in Bengal, Bombay and Madras sub-clause (1) of Section 213 has no application. 4. There is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.