Judgment :- 1. As per the order of the Land Tribunal, the applicant revision-petitioner who is admittedly a kudikidappukaran is found entitled to purchase 5 cents of land where the kudikidappu is situate, by virtue of the provisions of subsection (4) of S.80-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This decision of the Land Tribunal is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, and the applicant has come up in revision before this Court claiming that he is entitled to assignment of 10 cents of land instead of the S cents allowed by the statutory tribunals below. 2. The revision-petitioner was allowed to purchase only 5 cents on the finding that the respondent land-owner holds only less than 1 acre of land and there are two kudikidappukars in the land held by her. 3. It is not in dispute that her late husband Francis was in possession of 10.76 acres of land. Francis died in 1963. If be had died intestate, the respondent along with her two sons inherits the property left behind by her husband Francis and if her share in the total extent of land left behind by Francis is also taken into account, the respondent holds more than 1 acre of land and the kudikidappukaran will be entitled to purchase 10 cents of land instead of the 5 cents ordered by the courts below. In support of her plea, that she holds only less than 1 acre of land, the respondent produced an unregistered will dated 10-8-1961 said to have been executed by late Francis bequeathing his properties to his two sons and to the exclusion of his wife the respondent. The Will was accepted by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority as true and genuine and since the respondent does not inherit the estate of her deceased husband, it was held that she holds only less than 1 acre of land and hence she is entitled to rely upon sub-section (4) of S.80-A to contend that both the kudikidappukars together are entitled to only 10 cents of land. The applicant was therefore found entitled only to 5 cents under, S.80-A of the Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that the unregistered Will produced by the respondent cannot be relied on for the reason of the bar under S.213 of the Indian Succession Act. The applicant was therefore found entitled only to 5 cents under, S.80-A of the Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that the unregistered Will produced by the respondent cannot be relied on for the reason of the bar under S.213 of the Indian Succession Act. As per this Section no right as executor or legatee can be established in any court of justice unless a court of competent jurisdiction has granted a probate of the Will under which the right is claimed or has granted letters of administration with the Will or an authenticated copy of the Will annexed thereto. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the bar under S.213 is only against an executor or legatee claiming rights under a Will in respect of which no probate or letters of administration had been granted; and S.213 does not apply where no such right as executor or legatee is claimed by a party to the proceedings. In the present case, the Will is relied upon to show that the respondent landowner does not derive title to the estate left behind by her husband late Francis, and the total extent of the 10.76 acres of land that belonged to Francis is the subject of bequest in favour of his two sons and the respondent derived no title to the same. It is to prove this fact that the will has been produced and relied upon and in those circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, there is no bar against the admission of the Will in evidence under S 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 5. The Supreme Court in the decision in Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and Others (AIR. 1962 SC. 1471) stated thus at page 1475: "The words of S.213 are not restricted only to those cases where the claim is made by a person directly claiming as a legatee. The section does not say that no person can claim as a legatee or as an executor unless he obtains probate or letters of administration of the will under which he claims. The section does not say that no person can claim as a legatee or as an executor unless he obtains probate or letters of administration of the will under which he claims. What it says is that no right as an executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless probate or letters of administration have been obtained of the will under which the right is claimed, and therefore it is immaterial who wishes to establish the right as a legatee or an executor. Whosoever wishes to establish that right, whether it be a legatee or an executor himself or somebody else who might find it necessary in order to establish his right to establish the right of some legatee or executor from whom he might have derived title, he cannot do so unless the will under which the right as a legatee or executor is claimed has resulted in the grant of a probate or letters of administration". 6. In the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Gansham-doss Narayandoss v. Gulab Bi Bai (AIR. 1927 Mad 1054), Phillips, Offg Chief Justice stated the law at page 1059, thus: "The mere existence, therefore, of a will does not necessarily displace the plaintiff's title. It is necessary for the defendant to go further and to prove that someone other than the plaintiff has title under the Will. This he cannot do by virtue of the provisions of S.187." (S. 187 of the Indian Succession Act 1865 corresponds to S.213 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.) Ananthakrishna Iyer J. agreeing with the Offg. Chief Justice, stated at page 1059 as follows: "Similarly a prima facie title made out by the plaintiff to the property in suit is, I think, a good title against all the world except against the person who can show a better title. This prima facie title of the plaintiff has no doubt to be proved by him if it be not admitted by the defendant; but when once plaintiff's prima facie title is admitted or proved, I think it follows that he must succeed unless the defendant is able to displace the plaintiff's prima facie title and prove a better title in some person, other than the plaintiff. If such person's rights should happen to be as legatee under a will, since the defendant has to prove such person's right as legatee, be comes within the scope of S.213, Succession Act, 39,1925 (S. 187 of the old Act 10, 1865) under which no right as legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed." 7. In Lakshmamma v. Ratnamma (AIR. 1916 Mad. 422) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court considering S.187 of the Succession Act, 1865 stated as follows at page 423: 'It has been urged that S.187 affects only the establishment of a right by the legatee himself or some persons claiming under him and does not debar the 1st defendant who desires to establish the legatee's right, merely as a jus tertii for the purpose of her defence. No. Authority has been cited and no reason suggested for such a distinction. It is said further that S.187 is further irrelevant, when the plaintiffs have admitted the existence of the will and its terms. The answer is that, though they admitted the existence of the document, they denied its validity or the validily of rights under it, and the fact that their denial was based on one ground which has been held to be mistaken cannot alter the scope of their admission or disable them from taking other available objections." The same view is expressed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the decision in Jogendranath Banerjee v. Makkan Lal Banerjee sl Others, AIR. (29) 1942 Calcutta 401 at page 405: "The section does not say that "no claim as executor or legatee can be established" and consequently the prohibition contained in it is not limited only to case where the claimant is himself an executor or a legatee under the will. If, in a case, it be necessary to establish the right as executor or legatee under a will, no matter whether or not the person setting up the right claims under that right, the prohibition shall apply. The section is not limited in its operation only to cases where the plaintiff brings a suit as executor or legatee or even to cases where the defendant claims as executor or legatee. The section is not limited in its operation only to cases where the plaintiff brings a suit as executor or legatee or even to cases where the defendant claims as executor or legatee. It extends to all cases where it becomes necessary in the suit to decide that under the will the right as an executor or legatee accrued. It equally debars a person who is required to establish the legatee's right merely as a jus tertii for the purpose of his defence." 8. Krishna Iyer J. in the decision in Geevarghese Geevarghese and another v Issahak George and Others (AIR. 1971 Ker. 270) stated at page 273 as follows: 7. In my view, S.213(1) governs this matter. When it says that no right can be established in any court unless a court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, it really lays down the exclusive manner of establishing a right under a will. In short, it is processual and not substantive and, therefore, applies to wills of anterior dates which are sought to be proved on a posterior date." 9. From these authorities cited above, the law is clear that unless the will is probated or the letters of administration granted as per S.20 of the Indian Succession Act, no rights under the Will can be established to defeat the rights of parties, involved in the proceedings before the Court, even if the right claimed under the Will is in a person other than the parties to the proceedings. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the bar under S.213 of the Indian Succession Act is only against the establishment of the right under a Will in a Court of justice and not in a statutory Tribunal like the Land Tribunal in the present case. As held by Krishna Iyer J in AIR. 1971 Kerala 270, S.213 lays down the exclusive manner of establishment of a right under a Will which is processual and not substantive. What S.213 enacts is not merely a rule of evidence but the exclusive manner in which the rights under a Will can be established. No other manner of establishment of such rights is permitted by the Section. 11. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Brajnandan Sinha's case (AIR. What S.213 enacts is not merely a rule of evidence but the exclusive manner in which the rights under a Will can be established. No other manner of establishment of such rights is permitted by the Section. 11. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Brajnandan Sinha's case (AIR. 1956 S. C. 66) in considering the question as to whether a Commission appointed under the Public Servants' Enquiries Act 37 of 1850 is a Court or not for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Supreme Court considered the question as to what according to law is a Court and after referring to various authorities the Court stated at Para.18 thus: "18. It is clear, therefore, that in order to constitute a Court in the strict sense of the term an essential condition is that the Court should have, apart from haying some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definite judgment which has finality and authontiveness which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement." In this view of the matter also there can be little doubt that the provisions of S.213 of the Indian Succession Act apply in relation to proceedings before Land Tribunals established under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It should therefore be held that the unregistered Will said to have been executed by Francis the deceased husband of the respondent bequeathing his properties to his sons cannot be relied on in support of the respondent's case, that she derived no title to the lands left behind by her deceased husband. Deceased Francis bad 10.76 acres of land and the respondent is an heir at law of the deceased Francis. It is not disputed that if the inheritance of the estate of the deceased Francis is as on intestacy, the respondent holds more than 1 acre of land and the applicant will be entitled to 10 cents under S.80-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 12. The result is, that in modification of the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority the applicant is held entitled to 10 cents of land under S.80-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The C.R.P. is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.