( 1 ) BEING aaggrieved by the order dated 23-10-2003 passed by XVII ADJ, indore in Succession Case No. 8/2002, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 278 of the India Succession act, 1925 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "act") has been rejected, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that deceased was Ms. Renuka Bai w/o Balkrishna, who passed away on 6-11-1998. After her death the appellant filed a petition under section 278 of the Act on 3-8-2000 alleging that the deceased-Renuka Bai executed the registered Will on 22-8-1995 before her death, where by the property which is a house bearing municipal No. 70, old 81, now situated at Barabhai, Indore was given to the appellant. Hence, it was prayed that the letter of Administration be issued in his favour. ( 3 ) THE petition filed by the appellant was opposed by the respondents on various grounds and it was prayed that petition for grant of Probate/letter of Administration be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Court below framed the issues recorded the evidence and at the time of passing of order the learned Court below vide order dated 23-10-2003 dismissed the petition on the ground that in State of Madhya pradesh, petition for grant of Probate/letter of Administration relating to immovable property is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) FOR just disposal of this petition, relevant sections of Indian Succession Act are necessary, which are reproduced herein-below :- 264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking probates, etc.- (1)The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district. (2) Except in cases to which Section 57 applies, no Court in any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, shall, where the deceased is a hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorized it so to do. 213. 213. Right as executor or legatee when established.- 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 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 Muhammadans (or Indian Christians), and shall not apply- (i) in the case of will 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 (16 of 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 situatedwithin those limits.)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, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of September, 1870 within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court of judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situated within those territories or limits; (and (c) to all wills and codicils made by any hindu, Buddhist, Sikh "or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by Clauses (a) and (b)]. ( 5 ) IN the matter of Damodarlal v. Gopinath, AIR 1956 Nagpur 209, Hon'ble shri Justice Hidayatullah observed that under the Notification No. 7988, dated 19-7-1994, issued by the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, the District judges, were authorized to receive applications for Probate and letters of Administration even in the cases of Hindu Wills not falling under Sec. 57. That notification must be deemed to continue in force as one under sub-section 2 of Sec. 264 of the present succession Act. The jurisdiction of the District judge to grant probate is limited under Sec. 270 to the cases of a testator who had a fixed place of abode at the time of his decease or any property movable or immovable within the jurisdiction of the Judge. It was further observed that it is not obligatory for any one to obtain probate in respect of the Will of a Hindu in any local area beyond the towns of Calcutta, Madras and bombay. District Judge, Hoshangabad has jurisdiction to grant or refuse the same if moved for probate. When the requirements in Sec. 270 are satisfied it cannot be said that the Court has no jurisdiction in granting the probate. In the matter of Lachhman singh v. Smt. Brisbhan Dulari reported in 1966 MPLJ SN 8, this Court has held that the combined effect of Section 213 (2) (i) and section 57 of the Act is that obtaining of a probate of the Will is not a condition precedent to the establishment of a right where the Will has been made by a person who is a resident of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the property situated in Madhya Pradesh. In the case of M/s. Kalka Prasad Ramlal v. Rammomal, AIR 1978 Allahabad 298, allahabad High Court has held that there was no necessity of a notification in the Official gazette empowering the District Judge to entertain petitions for Probates and Letters of Administration and grant the same. It, therefore, follows that the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain petitions and grant Letters of Administration. In the case of Vidhyaram v. Devilal. reported in 1981 jlj 203 : AIR 1981 NOC 93, this Court has observed that there can be no dispute with the proposition that Section 213 (1) has no applicability to a Will made by a Hindu which falls in Clause (c) of Section 57 of the Act. In the case of Vidhyaram v. Devilal. reported in 1981 jlj 203 : AIR 1981 NOC 93, this Court has observed that there can be no dispute with the proposition that Section 213 (1) has no applicability to a Will made by a Hindu which falls in Clause (c) of Section 57 of the Act. Accordingly, a person sets up a Will does not fall within Clauses(a) and (b) of Section 57 can establish his right as legatewes in any Court of Justice without obtaining a probate. To put it differently, obtaining of probate in such a case is optional. In the matter of Madan Gopal v. Ramjiwanibai, reported 1986 JLJ 806 , this Court has held that Will falling under Section 57 (a) or (b)are exempted from the requirement of being probated in order to establish legatee's right under the Will. In the matter of Balbir singh Wasu v. Lakhbir Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 503 , the question before Hon'ble Apex Court was that Section 213 of Succession Act which requires an executor to obtain probate before establishing his claim under the will was not applicable outside the Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Madras and bombay. The Hon'ble Court held that assuming this to be correct, we do not read section 213 as prohibiting the executor from applying for probate as a matter of prudence or convenience to the Courts in other parts of the country not covered by Section 213. Those Courts are competent to entertain such applications if made. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the application is filed for grant of Probate and the same could not have been rejected in view of the aforesaid settled position of law. Since the petition was filed before District Judge, Indore for grant of Probate which could not be rejected on the ground that in Madhya Pradesh petition filed for grant of Probate or Letter of administration is not maintainable. ( 7 ) IN view of this, the impugned order dated 23-10-2003 passed in Succession case No. 8/2002 is set-aside. The learned court below is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 11-9-2006. Record of the Court below be sent immediately, so as to reach before the date. ( 8 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. Order accordingly. .