Advocates Cannot Threaten Judges With Corruption Allegations To Force Favourable Orders: Bombay High Court Holds Lawyers Guilty Of Criminal Contempt Co-Sharer Cannot Transfer Specific Portion Of Joint Land; Sale Operates Only As Transfer Of Undivided Share: Himachal Pradesh High Court Companies Act 2013 | Amount Due For Refund Post-Capital Reduction Does Not Qualify As Unclaimed Application Money For IEPF Transfer: Delhi High Court Seniority Cannot Be Claimed By Ad Hoc Or Temporary Employees Over Regularly Appointed Candidates: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Deposit Of Entire Enhanced Compensation In Land Acquisition Appeals To Balance Financial Liability And Landowners' Rights Succession To Bhumidhari Rights By Hindu Women Governed By Personal Law As It Stands On Date Of Demise: Supreme Court Hindu Widow’s Limited Life Interest In Agricultural Land Becomes Absolute Upon Enactment Of HSA 1956, Governs Devolution Under Delhi Land Reforms Act: Supreme Court Bodily Injury Under Section 165 MV Act Covers Both Temporary And Permanent Injuries Irrespective Of Disability Certification: Bombay High Court Testimony Of An Injured Witness Is A 'Sterling Witness' With A Built-In Guarantee Of Presence At The Scene Of Crime: Allahabad High Court Scrutiny Committee Has Inherent Power To Direct Re-Examination Of Documents During Caste Verification, Does Not Need To Discard Entire Vigilance Report: Bombay High Court Tender Cancellation Orders Must Be Reasoned; Affidavit Cannot Supplement Missing Reasons: Allahabad High Court Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Allows Interim Orders Against Non-Signatories To Preserve Subject Matter: Delhi High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Parsi Matrimonial Suit Can Be Dismissed At Threshold If Jurisdictional Fact Of Marriage Solemnisation In India Is Absent: Bombay High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Is A Social Welfare Measure To Prevent Destitution, Not A Tool For Financial Enrichment: Allahabad High Court Locus Standi To Challenge Tenancy Orders | Person With Registered Agreement For Sale Is An 'Aggrieved Person' Under BTAL Act: Bombay High Court

Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court

14 September 2026 1:05 PM

By: sayum


"In view of the aforesaid development, the requirement of obtaining the probate of a Will before claiming right under a Will is not mandated in law." High Court of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh, in a ruling dated September 2, 2026, has clarified that the omission of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, via the 2025 amendment, has dispensed with the requirement of obtaining probate to establish rights as an executor or legatee.

A bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the refusal by revenue authorities to attest a mutation based on a Will due to the absence of probate is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, challenged an order passed by Respondent No. 3 (Tehsildar Ghagwal) dated July 31, 2026, which had rejected his application for the attestation of Mutation of Inheritance. The authority had refused to acknowledge the Will in the petitioner’s favor, citing the absence of a probate as a ground for rejection. The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court seeking to set aside this order.

The central legal question before the Court was whether the requirement of obtaining probate under the unamended Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act remains a prerequisite for claiming rights under a Will following the legislative changes in 2025. The Court was further required to determine if revenue authorities could refuse the attestation of mutation solely on the ground of the absence of such probate.

Legislative Shift Regarding Probate

The Court noted that prior to the 2025 amendment, Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, strictly mandated that no right as an executor or legatee could be established in any Court of Justice unless probate or letters of administration had been granted. However, the Court emphasized that the legal landscape has undergone a fundamental change with the enactment of Act No. 39 of 2025.

"Vide Act No. 39 of 2025, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stands amended and section 213 of the said Act has been omitted."

Absence Of Mandate To Obtain Probate

The Bench held that because Section 213 has been omitted from the statute book, the earlier legal hurdle of obtaining probate has been effectively removed. Consequently, any administrative or judicial refusal to recognize a Will on the basis of a missing probate is now contrary to the prevailing law.

"Therefore, the action of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for attestation of Mutation of Inheritance, on the basis of a Will in his favour, is not sustainable in law."

Directions Issued To Revenue Authority

Finding merit in the petitioner's challenge, the Court set aside the impugned order of rejection. The Tehsildar (Respondent No. 3) has been directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for the attestation of Mutation of Inheritance in accordance with the current legal position. The Court has mandated that this exercise be completed within a period of one month from the date the order is served.

Outcome of the Ruling

By clarifying the impact of the 2025 amendment, the High Court has streamlined the process for legatees to assert their rights under a Will without being subjected to the cumbersome procedural requirement of seeking probate, which is no longer mandated under the Act.

Date of Decision: 02 September 2026

 

Latest Legal News