Order Sita Rani Chopra, wife of Mangalsen Chopra had her permanent abode at village Silao, within Nalanda district (Bihar). Besides her house property at Silao, she also possess a house at Faridabad (Haryana). 2. On 13.10.1992, she executed a registered will in respect those house properties at Silao and Faridabad in favour of her daughter-in-law, Babita Chopra and appointed her husband, Pankaj Kumar Chopra as executor therein. She died on 14.10.1995 at Patna, leaving behind her husband, two sons and a daughter. 3. Babita Chopra, on 10.11.1995 filed Letters of Administration Case No.1 of 1995, in the court of the District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif for grant of probate of the said will. 4. Ashok Kumar Chopra, one of the sons of the deceased testator raised preliminary objection, challenging jurisdiction of Biharsharif court to entertain the Letters of Administration case on the ground that the alleged will also consisted a house property of the deceased at Faridabad (Haryana), which was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Nalanda. 5. By the impugned order dated 10.12.1996, the Fifth Additional District Judge, Nalanda was pleased to hold that the court at Biharsharif had no jurisdiction to decide the probate case and disposed of the same with an observation that a case for grant of probate or letter of administration may be filed before this Court, which has better jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as compared to the jurisdiction of the Biharsharif court and also in view of the fact that the properties detailed in the will were of two jurisdiction. 6. In my view, Sections 264 and 273 of the Act specifically conferred jurisdiction on the District court to grant an effective probate for all properties. A District court has, therefore, jurisdiction to grant a probate even when such probate is inoperative in relation to the properties situate outside the province of the District Court. 7. Proviso to Section 273 itself enact that "unless otherwise directed by the grant" the probate will have effect through-out the other States. It deals with an extra territorial effect of the grant and the context in which those words occur in the proviso, makes it clear that the direction contemplated is a direction regarding the extra territorial effect. 8. 7. Proviso to Section 273 itself enact that "unless otherwise directed by the grant" the probate will have effect through-out the other States. It deals with an extra territorial effect of the grant and the context in which those words occur in the proviso, makes it clear that the direction contemplated is a direction regarding the extra territorial effect. 8. In my opinion, a district court does not lose its jurisdiction to grant a probate merely because property worth more than, Rs. 10000/-, belonging to the estate of the deceased are situate outside the State in which the District Court exercises jurisdiction. Thus even if the properties worth Rs. 10000/- are situate outside the State, it will not invalidate the probate proceeding. 9. I, therefore, hold that the District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif is competent to grant probate or Letters of Administration in respect of all properties wherever situate that are likely to come to the hand of the executor to the grant by its own force only effects the properties situate in the province in which the grant is made. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to dispose of the Letters of Administration Case No. 1 of 1995 on merit in accordance with law.