M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE original opponents who opposed the grant of probate to the respondent original petitioner have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 30th December 1974 passed by the learned second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Nadiad in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 1970 granting a probate with a copy of the will annexed in favour of the petitioner on usual terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) MR. R. N. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants raises three points in this appeal. His first submission is that the application for probate is not tenable at law because the will does not mention the name of the petitioner 3s the executor and as the petitioner is not the executor named in the will inspite of the statement made to that effect in the petition the statement is incorrect and does not amount to compliance with the provisions contained in sec. 276 (1) (a) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (the Act ). Another limb of his argument that the application is not tenable at law is that there is also no compliance with the provisions contained in sec. 281 of the Act inasmuch as the petition for probate when filed was not verified by atleast one attesting witness as required under that section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate he submission on the first point it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions contained in secs. 276 281 and 282 of the Act. Section 276 so far as material for our purpose lays down that :-"276 (1) Application for probate or for letters of administration with the will annexed. shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the court in which the application is made with the will or in the cases mentioned in secs. shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the court in which the application is made with the will or in the cases mentioned in secs. 237 238 and 239 a copy draft or statement of the contents thereof annexed and stating (a) x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x (c) x x x x x x (d) x x x x x x ( e) When the application is for probate that the petitioner is the executor named in the will. THE provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of sec. 276 are not material for our purpose. "281 Where the application is for probate the petition shall also be verified by at least one of the witnesses to the will (when procurable) in the manner or to the effect following namely: x x x x x x xsuch. If any petition or declaration which is hereby required to be verified contains averment which the person making the verification knows or believes to be false person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) NOW in the petition in para 3 a statement is made in clear that the applicant is the executor named in the said will and by amendment it is also added that the applicant is the sole legatee of the properties under the will. ( 5 ) MR. Shahs submission is that the provisions contained in sec. are mandatory provisions and every petition inter alia for a probate the will annexed must contain a statement to the affect that the is the executor named in the will as provided in clause (c) of section (1) of sec. 276 of the Act and in the instant case though a statement does find place in the petition in para 3 the statement an incorrect one and a false one submits Mr. Shah because on going the contents of the will which is produced at Ex. 3/1 nowhere is to be found that the petitioner is named as the executor of the will nor does the will contain any express statement to the effect that the petitioner is appointed as the executor. Shah because on going the contents of the will which is produced at Ex. 3/1 nowhere is to be found that the petitioner is named as the executor of the will nor does the will contain any express statement to the effect that the petitioner is appointed as the executor. The will after setting out the properties and after stating that the testator bestows the absolute and entire property so set out or any other property belonging to him though not set out or which may be acquired by him in future or which may belong to him without his knowledge on the son of his nephew Parshottambhai that is petitioner Vithalbhai Parshottambhai the following state ment appears in Gujarati in the will : translated into English it reads thus: "i decide that after my death after taking possession of the entire property by virtue of the right as an absolute owner he has to use and enjoy the same as an absolute owner in that nobody has to create any hindrance or obstruction what sovever. In that manner after taking possession of the entire property by virtue of the right of absolute ownership he has to do as follows: (a) Whatever debt has been incurred by me he has to pay off the said debt from my property: (B) Whatever outstanding are recoverable by the from any person he should recover the said outstandings by virtue of rights of absolute ownership; (C) All my after death ceremonies have to be done by him as per his volition from my property. On the basis of these material terms of the will Mr. Shah urges that this amounts to bequest of the property absolutely on the petitioner as a sole beneficiary or legatee and he is therefore authorised to take possession of the property and to enjoy the same as such that means as a sole legatee and after having taken possession of the property he is enjoined to pay debts if any and to collect the outstandings by virtue of such right that means the right of a sole legatee and also to incur expenditure for the after death ceremonies in the manner he chooses. There is nothing in the sill submits Mr. There is nothing in the sill submits Mr. Shah to suggest that he is appointed much less named as an executor and therefore as there is no compliance with the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of sec. 276 of the Act the very basis on which a probate can be granted 10 the petitioner is missing and the learned Judge therefore committed an error in holding that he was the executor named in the will and he was entitled to the probate. ( 6 ) MR. B. R. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent original petitioner on the other hand contends that as provided in sec. 222 of the Act a probate is to be granted only to an executor appointed by the will which appointment may be expressed or by necessary implication. Mr. Shah also relies on illustration (iii) to the said section which reads thus: (III) Appoint several persons executors of his will and codicils and his nephew residuary lagatee and in another codicil are these words I appoint my nephew my residuary legatee to discharge all lawful demands against my will and codicils signed of different dates. The nephew is appointed an executor by implication". Mr. B. R. Shah therefore contends that in the instant case also the petitioner is appointed as a sole legatee and he is authorised to pay debts due by the deceased to third parties and to collect outstandings due to him from third parties and also to incur expenditure for his afterdeath ceremonies out of the funds belonging to the deceased and this therefore amounts to appointment of the petitioner as an executor by implication. I find considerable force in this point canvassed by Mr. B. R. Shah and it provides a complete answer to Mr. R. N. Shahs submission made on this aspect of the question. If we look at the scheme of the Act contained in part IX with regard to probate letters of administration and administration of assets of deceased it will be found that as provided in sec. B. R. Shah and it provides a complete answer to Mr. R. N. Shahs submission made on this aspect of the question. If we look at the scheme of the Act contained in part IX with regard to probate letters of administration and administration of assets of deceased it will be found that as provided in sec. 217 Save as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force all grants of probate and letters of administration with the will annexed and the administration of the assets of the deceased in cases of intestate succession shall be made or carried out as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Chapter I is entitled of grant of probate and letters of administration and in this chapter we find sec. 222 which reads thus: "222 (1) Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the will. (2) The appointment may be expressed or by necessary implication sec. 223 deals with persons to whom probate cannot be granted and sec. 224 provides that when several executors are appointed probate may be granted to them all simultaneously or at different times. The rest of the sections in this chapter are not relevant for our purpose ( 7 ) CHAPTER II deals with limited grants. Chapter III is with regard to alteration and revocation of grants and then follows chapter IV which is entitled of the practice in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. In this chapter appears sec. 276 the material part whereof has already been set out. We need not go into the remaining provisions contained in this chapter as also in the remaining chapters of Part IX as they are not relevant for our purpose. ( 8 ) IT would be thus seen that section 222 is the substantive section dealing with the right with regard to great of probate of a will. The right therefore to obtain probate flows from section 222 and it provides that it shall be granted only 10 an executor appointed by a will and as sub- section (2) provides appointment may be expressed or by necessary implication. Therefore if the appointment is by necessary implication and not expressed then also the person who is appointed an executor by a will by such necessary implication will be entitled to a probate. Therefore if the appointment is by necessary implication and not expressed then also the person who is appointed an executor by a will by such necessary implication will be entitled to a probate. Section 276 is a procedural section which inter alia provides as to the particulars to be stated in an application for a probate or letters of administration with the will annexed and as clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 276 provides when the application is for probate it has to be stated in the petition that the petitioner is the executor named in the will. A procedural section cannot control a substantive section. It has to subordinate itself to the substantial section and therefore what is meant by section 276 when it provides that the petitioner must state that he is the executor named in the will is in effect and substance the fact that the petitioner is the executor appointed by the will. The form prescribed by the procedural section cannot override the provisions of a substantive section and the requirements thereof as appear to be in conflict with the substantive section will have to be so interpreted and read as to harmonise and reconcile with the substantive provisions or else will have to give in and be treated as non-operative so far as they are inconsistent with the substantive section. Therefore if in fact the petitioner is the person appointed by the will may be the appointment is by necessary implication as provided in sec. 222 then though he may not be named specifically as such in the will yet he would be entitled to the probate and therefore the requirements of sec. 276 (1) (e) will have to be taken as complied with as soon as it is found that the petitioner is the person who is an executor appointed by a will as provided in sec. 222 though he may not be specifically named as an executor of the will in the will itself. It therefore cannot be said that the statement made by the petitioner in the instant case in his petition to the effect that he is the executor named in the will is an incorrect or false statement and that therefore requirements of sec. 276 (1) (e) are not complied with. It therefore cannot be said that the statement made by the petitioner in the instant case in his petition to the effect that he is the executor named in the will is an incorrect or false statement and that therefore requirements of sec. 276 (1) (e) are not complied with. In any event as stated earlier the requirement in a procedural section has to subordinate itself to the requirement of the substantive section and both the sections therefore have to be harmoniously interpreted so that they reconcile with each other. In any case they cannot be so interpreted as to lead to * this view of the matter I do not find any merit in Mr. R. N. Shahs contention based on interpretation of sec. 276. ( 9 ) MR. Shah in this connection also drew my attention to the provisions contained in sec. 282 which provides punishment for false averment in petition or declaration and urged that if the statement made by the petitioner in his petition to the effect that he is the executor named in the will is a false one because the will does not name him as an executor then he is liable to be dealt with for an offence punishable under sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore also the court should be reluctant to grant a probate to the petitioner who makes a false statement in the petition which exposes him to criminal prosecution. ( 10 ) I am unable to accept this contention because as earlier stated the provisions contained in section 276 are of a procedural nature. They have to be reconciled with and have to subordinate themselves to the provisions contained in the substantive section viz. section 222 and if both the provisions are read harmoniously the only reasonable meaning that can be assigned to the words the executor named in the will would be the executor appointed by the will either expressly or by necessary implication or the executor named in the will either expressly or by necessary implication. Again a procedural section cannot 18y down a requirement which is directly in conflict with the requirement of law as embodied in the substantive provisions of law by which a particular right is granted and for enforcing which right the procedural section provides a procedure. Again a procedural section cannot 18y down a requirement which is directly in conflict with the requirement of law as embodied in the substantive provisions of law by which a particular right is granted and for enforcing which right the procedural section provides a procedure. The procedural section in such a case must take its colour from the substantive section and in this perspective the phrase the executor named in the will appearing in section 276 (1) (e) cannot have a different meaning than the phrase an executor appointed by the will appearing in section 222 (1) which phrase read in the light of illustration (iii) to section 222 applies both to an executor expressly appointed by a will or appointed by a will by necessary implication. ( 11 ) I am fortified in the view that I take with regard to the interpretation of section 222 of the Act by a decision in Arumilli Viramma v. Arumilli Seshamma and Another A. I. R. 1931 Mad. 343. There the nephew who was the legatee under the will was enjoined by the will as follows:-"it is devised that my nephew is to discharge the debts due by me to the world". It was held "the nephew was appointed executor an of the will by implication and that probate should be granted to him. SIMILAR view was also taken in M. J. Ganesa Ayyar v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. , AIR 1943 Mad 745 wherein it was observed "provisions in the will conferring on a person power to collect outstandings pay debts and manage the properties of the testator constitute that person an executor by implications". ( 12 ) WITH regard to the second limb of Mr. R. N. Shahs submission on the first point it is true that section 281 does provide that the petition for a probate has also to be verified by atleast one of the attesting witnesses in the prescribed manner and it is true that in the instant case the petition when presented was not so verified by one of the attesting witnesses. But this is a defect which is curable being in the nature of an irregularity and not an illegality and in fact it was curred by an affidavit of attesting witness Ambalal Laxmidas dated 7th August 1972 This point therefore does not survive. Appeal dismissed. .