ORDER Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. One P. K. Rockey was the sole proprietor of a concern known by the name M. A. Bankers. He died on 2nd October, 1974. Before his death he had executed a Will on 13th September of the same year. By that he created a trust known by the name 'P. K. Rockey Memorial Trust' his whole assets being the capital of the Trust and his brothers' sons to be the trustees. The Trust was to continue the business of the M. A. Bankers after his death, the ownership and management of the business to vest in the Trust. 2. At the time of Rockey's death some execution petitions were pending in court for execution of decrees obtained by the M. A. Bankers. Here we are concerned with two of such execution petitions. In both these petitions, the first respondent herein filed separate applications supported by his affidavit to. the effect that the proprietorship and management of the M. A. Bankers have as per Rockey's Will vested in the P. K. Rockey Memorial Trust, that he is the Managing Trustee as per the testamentary provisions and he is entitled to continue the proceedings for execution of the decree. Therefore the applicant sought to get himself impleaded in the deceased decree holder's place in the E.Ps. 3. These applications were strongly opposed by the judgment-debtors, the main ground being that the applicant has not produced the probate of the Will or letters of administration with the Will under which the right is claimed. On two grounds the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the objections. The grounds are: (i) The decree amount in each of the cases is charged on the properties and the prayer in execution is for realisa?ion of the amount by the sale of the properties. (ii) The applicant is coming as the Managing Trustee of the Trust to which the Banking concern now belongs, no doubt as per the Will. He is not claiming as a legatee under the Will. 4. The judgment-debtors have therefore came up in revision to this court in the revision petitions. They challenge the lower court's observation that the Managing Trustee the first respondent herein is not claiming as a legatee under the Will. He is not claiming as a legatee under the Will. 4. The judgment-debtors have therefore came up in revision to this court in the revision petitions. They challenge the lower court's observation that the Managing Trustee the first respondent herein is not claiming as a legatee under the Will. It is pointed out that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for impleading it is clearly stated that he is seeking execution of the decree only by virtue of the fact that he has been appointed as a managing trustee by the Will and as such he has got the right to execute the decree. The trust as well as the trustee is a legatee under the Will. Or at any rate, the right to execute the decree springs solely from the Will. The petitioners' contention is that when the right to execute the decree is questioned, the person who wants to execute the decree has to establish his right to execute the decree by satisfactory proof; the proof in this case can only be the Will which can be looked into, only if it is probated. It is also contended that a probate is necessary even in cases of execution of mortgage decrees. The respondents try to sustain the lower court's order. 5. The relevant provisions that come up for consideration here are sections 213 and 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 213 reads: , . "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 Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed. (2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans, and shall only apply (i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu. (2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans, and shall only apply (i) 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; and (ii) in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying after the commencement of the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 1962, where such Wills are made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and where such Wills are made outside those limits, in so far as they relate to immovable property situate within those limits." Section 214 reads: "Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons. (1) No Court shall (a) 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 (III of 1913), and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (VII of 1889) or (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein. (2) The word "debt" in sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes " 6. I will first take section 214. This section forbids any Court for passing a decree or proceedings in execution of a decree for payment of a debt except on production by the person claiming of a probate or letters of administration or succession certificate. The section is mandatory also. I will first take section 214. This section forbids any Court for passing a decree or proceedings in execution of a decree for payment of a debt except on production by the person claiming of a probate or letters of administration or succession certificate. The section is mandatory also. A debt is a sum of money now payable or a sum of money which will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation See Webb v. Stenion((1883) Q.B.D. 518) and also Bancharam Majumdar v. Adjanath Bhattacherjee (I.L.R. (1909) 36 Cal. 936 at 938, 939). A suit to recover money on a simple mortgage, by the sale of the mortgaged property or execution of a decree on such mortgage by the sale of the property cannot be considered to be proceedings for recovery of a debt. I need here refer only to the decision of this Court in Mariya Ummal v. Rahuma Beevi (1971 K.L.T. 547). It may be that section 214 may come in where the court is called upon to pass a personal decree against mortgagor or in execution of such a personal decree. It might be noted that even the Allahabad High Court which is of opinion that money lent on the security of a mortgage is a debt due from the mortgagor to the mortgagee and a decree in a suit on such mortgage is a decree for payment of debt by sale of the mortgaged property necessitating production of the succession certificate, probate or letters of administration as the case may be Fateh Chand v. Muhammad Baksh (I.L.R. 16 All. 259 (F.B.)), Kasumari v. Makkhu (A.I.R. 1927 All. 227) has said that where the personal remedy under the mortgage deed had become barred by time long before the suit was brought and the mortgagee was simply entitled to a decree for a sale of the mortgaged property, the application for execution of the mortgage decree for realisation of the amounts by sale of the mortgaged property was not an application to obtain an order for the payment of his debt and hence no succession certificate was necessary Mohammed Ibrahim v. Bhagwan Das(A.I.R. 1935 All 897). I have therefore no hesitation in holding that section 214 is not attracted to this case. 7. The more difficult question arises in regard to the question of applicability of section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that section 214 is not attracted to this case. 7. The more difficult question arises in regard to the question of applicability of section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. The section is clear that in the absence of a probate, the Will cannot be used for establishing any right as executor or legatee See G. Geevarghese v. Issahak George (A.I.R, 1971 Kerala 270). In Hem Nolini Judah v. Isulyne Saroj Basini Bose (A.I.R, 1962 S.C. 1471), the Supreme Court pointed out: "This section clearly creates a bar to the establishment of any right under Will by an executor or a legatee unless probate or letters of administration of the Will have been obtained. It is now well-settled that it is immaterial whether the right under the Will is claimed as a plaintiff or as a defendant; in either case section 213 will be a bar to any right being claimed by a person under a Will whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant unless probate or letters of administra?ion of the Will have been obtained. [See Gansharndoss Narayandoss v. Gulab Bi Bai I.L.R. 50 Mad. 927: (A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 1054) (F.B.)] The position has been put a bit more widely in Thresia v. Lonan Mathew (A.I.R. 1956 T.C. 186 ) by a Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court. Where at page 388 there is the following observation: "The probate as ordinarily understood is a judicial act whereby the instrument is adjudged to be the last Will and testament of the deceased. It establishes the proper execution of the instrument and it is now taken to be the general rule that a Will cannot be given in evidence as the foundation of a right or title unless it has been duly probated.'' (emphasis mine). 8. I have advisedly stated that Travancore-Cochin decision puts the principle widely because as the Supreme Court points in the case cited supra, section 213 only creates a bar to the establishment of right as an executor or legatee. Who is an executor and who is a legatee. 'Executor' is defined in the Indian Succession Act itself to mean a person to whom the execution of the last Will of a deceased person is by the testator's appointment confided. The word 'legatee' is not defined. Who is an executor and who is a legatee. 'Executor' is defined in the Indian Succession Act itself to mean a person to whom the execution of the last Will of a deceased person is by the testator's appointment confided. The word 'legatee' is not defined. The ordinary meaning of the word is indicative of one to whom a legacy is bequeathed or to whom a devise is given. And legacy is a gift by Will of money or personal property; that which is left to one by a Will. Though by the literal construction of the word legacy and legatee money or personal property alone will be taken and technically it is inaccurate to apply the word to real property, courts have held that it may be so applied and that it may be considered as synonymous with the word devise. The courts are divided as to whether the word when used in a statute can be construed to include a person to whom real property has been devised, and while devise is the more accurate word, there is much authority for the broader use of the word if a contrary intention does not appear. This is clear from the Succession Act itself and therefore legacy can be taken to be a devise and legatee a devisee. Theobald would say in his well-known work on Wills that though the word legacy is prima facie applicable to personalty only it may refer to realty if there is nothing else to which it can refer or if there is a context wide enough to include realty. Theobald however says that legacy does not apply to land given on trust for sale and division, but it does to a legacy charged on real estate. 9. In this case the testator created by the Will a trust in regard to the business he was conducting under the name M. A. Bankers. He has detailed how this trust is to be administered and the business managed in future. He has named the trustees, the managing trustee, etc. The petition to proceed with the execution is filed by the managing trustee, no doubt, in accordance with the terms of the Will. No claim is sought to be established in the case as a legatee or executor. Durai v. Duraiswami Pillai (A.I.R. 1927 Mad. He has named the trustees, the managing trustee, etc. The petition to proceed with the execution is filed by the managing trustee, no doubt, in accordance with the terms of the Will. No claim is sought to be established in the case as a legatee or executor. Durai v. Duraiswami Pillai (A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 948) decided by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and Madhavan Nair, JJ.) is a case in point. The facts of that case are: The plaintiff's suit was mainly for a declaration that four persons viz., himself, defendants 5 and 6 and defendant 2 are entitled to manage the suit charity lands once in four years by force of a Will executed by one Yaga Pillai in 1898. The contesting defendants viz., defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the Will did not bind them, that the suit was not maintainable without sanction under section 92 Civil Procedure Code and that it was barred by limitation. Before the High Court, argument was also based on section 187 of the old Act of 1865 (corresponding to section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925). In repelling the argument the court said at page 950: "As Yaga Pillai survived Sourinayagam, we think on the death of Sourinayagam he became the sole trustee by survivorship. The Will of Yaga Pillai, dated 2nd November 1898, came into operation only after his death. This will cannot be deemed to have been revoked by Sourinayagam's death. Yaga Pillai being the sole trustee, he could provide a method for the management of the trust properties and that is what has been, done by his Will. It was argued that as probate of the Will has not been taken, the plaintiff cannot get any decree by virtue of it. This argument based on section 187, Succession Act, cannot be accepted. It is clear that the plaintiff does not claim any right as executor or as legatee under the Will and so the section is inapplicable. For these reasons we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce his right of management under the Will." In the light of what I have said above the revision petitions are only to be dismissed as the court below has not made an error of law much less any jurisdictional error. The C.R.Ps. are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.