JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: This petition has been filed by Shri Karam Singh who is aggrieved by the order passed by Shri Surinder Singh Thakur, Motor Accident, Claims Tribunal, Mandi on 17.10.1995. By means of impugned order, the Tribunal below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for release of the amount lying in deposit which was payable to deceased Ramu claimant in claim petition No. 15 of 39. 2. In order to properly understand the case, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. A claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Shri Ramu vide claim petition No. 15 of 89. Compensation was claimed accident, wherein he compromised the matter for a lump-sum of Rs.20,000/-. Tribunal below allowed a sum of Rs.7,000/- to be paid to Shri Ramu and the balance amount was ordered to be deposited for a period of 61 months. 3. Shri Ramu original claimant in claim petition No. 15/89 died and an application was filed by the present petitioner claiming the aforesaid amount on the basis of the Will which was purported to have been executed by Shri Ramu. Tribunal below on 2.5.1995 directed the petitioner to produce probate of the Will of Shri Ramu in his favour. 4. Petitioner instead of obtaining probate moved another application which came to be registered as CMP No.40/95 where it was pleaded that probate was not required in view of the provisions of section 213 read with section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, and the petitioner reiterated his claim to succeed to this amount on the basis of the registered will, certified copy obtained from the office of Sub Registrar was attached with the application which according to the Tribunal below prima facie showed that Shri Ramu had bequeathed the movable and immovable properties in favour of Shri Karam Singh. This application came out for consideration before the Tribunal below and by means of impugned order the same has been rejected and again it was ordered that the petitioner is required to produce the probate of the Will’ for the release of the amount in his favour and thus, the prayer for release of the amount in the absence of probate was declined which order has been questioned in the present petition. 5. 5. The sole question that has arisen for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is required to obtain the probate in respect of registered Will’ which according to him was executed by late Shri Ramu the original beneficiary, money payable to whom was lying in deposit or not. 6. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sham a, learned cousel for the petitioner has forcefully urged that the Will in question had been executed in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the money is also lying in deposit at Mandi. According to him, the Will in question was not made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay or within such territories which were subject to Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and further the Will in question does not relate to any immovable property situate within the territory of Bengal or ordinary original civil limits of the High Courts of Madras and Bombay, therefore, according to him the Court below has fallen in error while rejecting the application filed by his client. It was further pointed out by Shri Sharma that there was no necessity for his client having obtained the probate as ordered by the Tribunal below. 7. In order to properly understand and appreciate the submissions of Mr. Sharma, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 57 and section 213 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) "57. Application of certain provisions of part to a class of wills made by Hindus, etc:- The provisions of this part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply:- (a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the First day of September. 1870. Application of certain provisions of part to a class of wills made by Hindus, etc:- The provisions of this part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply:- (a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the First day of September. 1870. within the territories 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 Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such wills and condicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situate within those territories or limits; and (c) to all wills and condicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jains on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b): Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such will or codicil. 213. Right as executor or legatee when established:- (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in an 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 made by Muham-madans, and shall only apply:- (i) in the case of wills made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina where such wills are of 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." 8. In the present case, a narration of the facts detailed above clearly shows that the Will in question was neither related nor has any relaxation to any other property situate within the limits of Bengal and the jurisdiction of High Courts of the Judicature of Bombay and Madras. In the present case, a narration of the facts detailed above clearly shows that the Will in question was neither related nor has any relaxation to any other property situate within the limits of Bengal and the jurisdiction of High Courts of the Judicature of Bombay and Madras. In these circumstances, submission made by Shri Sharma in this behalf has substance and it is upheld. Suffice it to say that it is nobodys case that theregistered Will in question was executed in any of the three places as referred to in section 57 supra, nor it deals with the property detailed therein so the question of obtaining probate compulsorily does not arise at all and the findings recorded in this behalf to the contrary by the Tribunal below cannot be sustained and are accordingly reversed. If any authority is required in this behalf, reference can be made to AIR 1962 Punjab 382, Ram Chand Ganesh Dass-petilioner Sardara Singh & anr.,- respondents. In this case on the basis of succession Shri Sardara Singh claimed succession certificate in respect of the amount lying in Saving Bank account belonging to Smt. Bhag Bhari which claim was contested by Shri Ram Chand petitioner who claimed that succession certificate should be granted to him in view of the Will dated 28th August, 1958 executed by the deceased in his favour as he was her brother. In the face of this position, trial court stayed the proceedings and directed Shri Ram Chand brother of the deceased and beneficiary under the Will to obtain probate of the Will in question which order was questionedbeforethePunjabHighCourtandafterconsiderationofthewhole matter while allowing this revision it was observed as under- "(7) As I have said the clear reading of the provisions of the Act leave no doubt whatever that no probate is necessary in oder to set up a claim regarding property either moveable or immovable on the basis of a Will executed in the Punjab and not relating to property situated in the territories mentioned in section 57(a). I accordingly accept die revision petition and set aside die order of the lower court requiring the petitioner to obtain probate." 9. I accordingly accept die revision petition and set aside die order of the lower court requiring the petitioner to obtain probate." 9. To similar effect is AIR 1978 Allahabad 268 Bhaiyaji v. Jageshwar Dyal, is also a case where it has been held as under: - "(6) In order to appreciate the above controversy, reference may be made to section 57 read with section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. A reading of the aforesaid two provisions would indicate that the provisions of section 213 requiring an executor or legatee to obtain a probate of the Will under which the right is claimed shall only apply in case of wills made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jain where such wills are of the classes specified in cls. (a) and (b) of S.S7. Clauses (a) and (b) of S.57 would indicate that these provisions are applicable to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jain within the territories mentioned in Cl.(a) and also to all such wills and codicils amde outside those territories and limits so far as the same related to immovable property situated within these territories or limits. A combined reading of these two provisions would show that where the parties to the will are Hindus but the properties in dispute are not in Bengal, Bombay and Madras, Act applies and Sub-section (1) has no application. As a consequence, a probate will not be required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a will made regarding the immovable properties situate in Uttar Pradesh. The same view was taken by our High Court in Nobat Ram v. Smt. Gyatri Devi, 1968 All LJ 69. 10. In the face of the aforesaid two decisions, it is obvious that both movable and immovable properties except in those cases which are governed by section 57 of the Act, probate is not required in respect of a Hindu Will although it is optional if a party applies for the same. In view of the aforesaid legs! position, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons detailed hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the aforesaid legs! position, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons detailed hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is ordered that the application filed by the petitioner for the release of the amount deserves to-be allowed and the same is accordingly granted. It is, however, made clear that before releasing the amount in question in favour of the petitioner, he shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court setting therein that in case any other person makes a claim in respect of amount released in his favour, he shall indemnify the Court without any demur or objection in that behalf. -