JUDGMENT 1. Although the matter is appearing under the heading "Application", by consent of Mr. Ananda Haider, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mandal, learned Government Pleader for the respondents, we take up the hearing of the appeal itself for final disposal. This is an appeal against the judgment and Order dated February 15, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting an application under Article 226 of the Constitution with costs assessed at 300 GMs payable to the Administration. 2. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up with this appeal. 3. The writ petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that he was the sole recorded tenant of the land-in-dispute, which he had inherited from his mother, namely, Shrimati Jamuna Mistry, since deceased. It was contended that his mother bequeathed the disputed property in his favour by executing a will. On his prayer his name has been mutated in relation to the property-in-dispute, but the authorities were not granting occupancy right in his favour. 4. Therefore, the writ petition was moved seeking, inter alia, a mandamus on the authorities for granting occupancy right in respect of the disputed plots of land in favour of the writ petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the said application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding that a Will, registered or otherwise, in the absence of probate, is of no value whatsoever. The learned Judge even held that mutation granted in favour of the writ petitioner was also bad. The writ petitioner, therefore, could not claim any occupancy right in relation to the land-in question. 6. It seems that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the bench decisions of this Court in Veena Devi vs. Siserama Devi reported in ILR 2000 (1) A & N Series 437 and in Kumud Ranjan Saojal vs. Bimal Kar and others reported in ILR 2004 (8) A & N Series 61. 7. In Veena Devi (supra) a Division Bench, of this Court, upon consideration of the provisions of sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, held as follows :- Law in this connection is settled. 7. In Veena Devi (supra) a Division Bench, of this Court, upon consideration of the provisions of sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, held as follows :- Law in this connection is settled. No probate is necessary to set up a claim regarding property on the basis of a Will executed and relating to property situated not within the territories mentioned in section 57(a)... The contention of the respondents that in the present case Will was required to be probated as the Will was challenged, does not appear to be acceptable to us as no such exception has been provided in either of the said provisions of law. No law has been shown by the respondents to accept the aforesaid distinction. If the Will docs not require a probate under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, mere raising dispute as to its validity or its genuineness will not make it liable to probate. Such contentions could be urged in the partition suit itself applying some procedure as is done in respect of any other documentary evidence. In Kumud Ranjan Saojal (supra) it was held: Therefore, without obtaining a probate an executor of legatee can establish their right in any Court of justice if the above referred condition is sub-section 2 has been satisfied. If the finding of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment is accepted the same appears to be contrary to the aforesaid intention expressed by the legislature. "Therefore, in my opinion the said Will can be relied on as any other documentary evidence even in a proceeding before the Tehsildar. But it is true that the said document can be challenged by any party aggrieved thereby including legal heirs and representatives of the deceased in a competent Court of law and in case such a suit is field the proceeding before the Tehsildar regarding mutation can remain stayed till such decision is reached by the Civil Court. Unless the persons challenging the Will approach a Civil Court for appropriate declaration as regards invalidity want of genuineness of the said Will etc. the persons claiming under the said will can rely on the same in the same manner as he can rely on any other documentary evidence before the Tehsildar. 8. Unless the persons challenging the Will approach a Civil Court for appropriate declaration as regards invalidity want of genuineness of the said Will etc. the persons claiming under the said will can rely on the same in the same manner as he can rely on any other documentary evidence before the Tehsildar. 8. Under section 57, read with section 63, of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Wills made by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs or Buddhists in the provinces of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and in the Presidency Towns of Madras and Bombay, or those made outside such areas so far as they relate to immovable property situated within these areas, are required to be reduced to writing, signed and attested. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, requires a probate of such will to be taken after the testator's death if any right as the executor or the legatee is to be established under the will in a Court of Law. 9. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 57 and section 213 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no probate is necessary to set up a claim regarding properties, movable or immovable, on the basis of a will executed in these islands and not relating to property situated in territories mentioned in section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 10. Thus, as the alleged will was executed in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and in relation to the properties in those Islands, no probate is necessary. 11. Therefore, the Order impugned rejecting the writ petition is set aside. 12. Nevertheless, we are unable to give relief to the writ petitioner as the other natural heirs and legal representatives are not before us. 13. Thus, the writ petition is restored to its original file and number. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to apply for addition of other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Jamuna Mistry. Let such application be filed by two weeks. Put up the writ file along with the proposed application for addition of parties before the next available Circuit Bench. Appeal is, therefore, allowed with the aforesaid directions. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed