JUDGMENT : KOTHARI, J. Misapplying of decision in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel v. Dist. Collector, Gandhinagar, 2007(1) GLR 277 , has led the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, to dismiss the application for obtaining probate of Will by holding that, “In view of the said decision, it is not necessary for the applicants to incur expenditure for obtaining probate of Will. Hence, the application is rejected”. 2. The short facts are thus: The appellants-applicants had filed Misc. Civil Application No. 28/2011 in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, praying for grant of probate of the Will made on 14.07.2001 by Maharajkumar Late Shri Shivrajsinhji Bhojrajsinhji Jadeja, who died on 3.2.2011 at Gondal. Along with the Will, the applicants have produced a detailed Schedule showing various properties of the deceased. The applicants had filed the application for obtaining probate in the capacity of executors of the Will. Upon filing of the application, necessary formalities were carried out by the Court, viz. issuance of Public Notice in the newspaper inviting objections, if any, from the public. No objection was received by the Court from the public. The applicants had filed an affidavit (Exh.24) and also other two affidavits (Exhs. 22 & 23) supporting the applicant’s affidavit (Exh.24). The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Will appears to be genuine. It has also recorded a conclusion that the applicants have duly proved the Will. Thereafter, it says, “This Court is unable to grant probate of the Will to the applicants, as sought for by them, as the same is not necessary”. In support of this conclusion, the learned trial Court, in his short order, has referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel (supra). 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.B. Gogia for the appellants. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia, after referring the facts of the case, has submitted that uncontested application of the applicants appellants came to be rejected on the sole ground that the applicants are not required to obtain probate and the applicants need not incur unnecessary expenditure. The learned advocate has also drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal. 5. The appellants – applicants carried the appeal before the District Court, Gondal by filing Misc. The learned advocate has also drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal. 5. The appellants – applicants carried the appeal before the District Court, Gondal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2012 against the order of rejection of the application by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal. The learned 4th Additional District Judge, Gondal was pleased to return the appeal memo under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC by holding that in view of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 when the value of subject matter exceeds Rs. 5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lacs), the appeal would lay only before the High Court. That is how, the applicants are before this Court. 6. In Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case (supra), the applicants had applied to the District Collector for mutation of entry in her name. This application was based on the Will. The District Collector rejected the application on the ground that the applicants had not produced the Probate. In this context, the Court has held that where the executors of the Wills are Hindus and the Wills relate to immovable properties situated outside the cities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, probate is not required for establishing title to immovable property. 7. In Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case (supra), the Court has concluded thus: “Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, for a Will executed by a Hindu qua the immovable property situated outside the territory of original civil jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay and Madras, the probate is not compulsory for establishing the rights in the property. As the property in the present case is situated in Gandhinagar, even without probate the legatee who is the petitioner in the present case can establish the rights pursuant to the Will executed by deceased Chandubhai Jivabhai Patel who is admittedly Hindu. Hence, the stand of the District Collector insisting the probate for the Will in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” (para 10) (Emphasis supplied). 8. The limited question before the Court in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case (supra) was ;”As such, on the aspect of the existence of the Will, there is no dispute. Whether the Will is genuine or not is also not in dispute before this Court. 8. The limited question before the Court in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case (supra) was ;”As such, on the aspect of the existence of the Will, there is no dispute. Whether the Will is genuine or not is also not in dispute before this Court. Whether by the present Will, rights of the other legal heirs of the deceased are affected in any manner or not is also not an aspect, which is the subject matter of this petition. The only aspect, which arise for consideration is legality and validity of the stand taken by the District Collector for insistence of the probate before making mutation entry in the revenue record based on the Will of the deceased”. (para 4) (Emphasis supplied) 9. Apart from Minaxiben Patel’s case (supra), section 213 itself provides that rights etc. under the Will can be advanced before administrative or revenue authority, without obtaining probate of the Will. The authority unaware about the true legal position, if insists and asks for obtaining probate, the applicant then would have tough time to persuade the authority that it is not required. The decision to obtain or not to obtain probate should be left to the applicant himself/herself. Applicant’s application seeking probate must not entail and ended in dismissal of application just because it is not compulsory to seek probate. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia has submitted that in respect of shares and securities etc., attempt was made by the executor to transfer the name by addressing letters to the Company, however, the Company has written letters to the effect that the applicant may apply for transfer of name with copy of probate. 11. Inquiry in respect of Will before probate Court reaches at conclusion stage, when in given case the applicant proves the Will and the Will appears to be genuine to the Court, what follows and remains is passing of formal order of issuance of probate. The Court has however in the case on hand rejected the application after holding that the Will is duly proved and that it appears to be genuine, on the ground that it is not necessary to incur expenditure for obtaining probate of the Will. 12. The learned Senior Civil Judge has also referred to and relied on the decision in the case of Clarence Paise and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1151 . 12. The learned Senior Civil Judge has also referred to and relied on the decision in the case of Clarence Paise and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1151 . Rejection of probation application by relying on this decision is also erroneous. 13. In Clarence Paise’s case (supra), a practicing advocate, who was an Indian Christian, had filed a writ petition contending that Indian Christian are discriminated qua other communities in respect of operation and application of Indian Succession Act. In the context of examining the validity of the provisions, the Court has also considered the Scope of Section 213 of the said Act. With regard to the scope of Section 213 with which we are concerned herein, the Court has laid down thus: (1) it prohibits recognition of rights as an executor or legatee under a will without production of a probate; (2) it sets down a rule of evidence and forms really a part of procedural requirement of the law of forum; (3) the bar that is imposed by this section is only in respect of the establishment of the right as an executor or legatee and not in respect of establishment of the right in any other capacity; (4) the section does not prohibit the Will being looked into for purposes other than those mentioned in the section; (5) the bar to the establishment of the right is only for its establishment in a Court of justice and not its being referred to in other proceedings before administrative or other Tribunal; and (6) the section is a bar to everyone claiming under a will, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant, if no probate or Letters of Administration is granted. 14. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge has totally misread and misapplied the decision in the case of Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel (supra). It is distorted reading of the judgment. In Minaxiben Shashikanthbhai Patel’s case, this Court has not laid down that when the property is situated outside the cities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and the executor of the Will is a Hindu, then in that case no probate can be granted. There is no bar for grant of probate either under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, nor has been so laid down in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case. There is no bar for grant of probate either under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, nor has been so laid down in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case. It may be borne in mind that in Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel’s case (supra), rejection of the application by the District Collector had led the Court to examine the issue, while in the present case, the Court has proceeded to give advice to the applicants that they should not incur expenditure for obtaining probate. By holding so, the Court rejected the applicants’ application. Such a crude reasoning deserves criticism. 15. It may be stated that the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal though at the end of the order was pleased to return the appeal memo under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, has passed quite elaborate order. Be that as it may. The order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal is bad and illegal and is, therefore, hereby set aside. 16. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge has observed in his order that some of the properties of the deceased are situated at Bombay and he has not passed order in respect of those properties. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia has drawn attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in Nagraj Chhajer, S/o. Budhmalji Chhajer, 2011(2) GLR 1350 . In that case, the Court, inter alia, considering Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act has held that the competent Courts which would have jurisdiction are either the District Court within whose local limits the permanent abode of the deceased was, or the Court within whose jurisdiction the property for which the probate is asked for is situated. Relying upon this decision, it was submitted by Mr. Gogia that the permanent abode of the deceased was Gondal. Therefore, the Court at Gondal would have jurisdiction to decide the application. It is immaterial that the property is situated within the Gujarat State or at Bombay. In view of the decision in the case of Nagraj Chhajer (supra), the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate Mr. Gogia is accepted. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, in Misc. Civil Application No. 28/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Misc. Civil Application No.28/2011 is restored to the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal. Gogia is accepted. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, in Misc. Civil Application No. 28/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Misc. Civil Application No.28/2011 is restored to the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal. It is expected that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal would pass necessary order in accordance with law in the said Misc. Civil Application as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed.