Probate no longer mandatory in these three metros: What repealing Section 213 means for wills and estates

During the recent winter session, the Parliament successfully passed the Repealing and Amending Bill, 2025 (now Act), marking a major shift in India’s succession framework. The Act does away with the colonial era requirement of probate or letters of administration in the erstwhile presidency towns, thereby promising faster and reduced costs of estate administration for families in Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.

Repeal of Section 213

The Act repeals 71 outdated laws and provisions, including Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA).

This provision required the executor or heirs of a deceased Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Parsi, or Buddhist person to obtain probate or letters of administration from the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta or Madras for wills executed in these cities, or for wills made outside when immovable property was located within their territorial limits. This requirement did not apply elsewhere in India. The removal of Section 213 aims at bringing uniformity and eliminating “discriminatory” provisions under the ISA.


Similarly, Section 370(1) of the ISA has been amended to exclude probate requirements for being obsolete. The Repealing and Amending Act received Presidential assent on 20 December and was notified in the official Gazette a day later.

Impact in the three cities

As a result, the Act places the wills of deceased Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Parsi or Buddhist persons in Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai on a par with those in the rest of India. Families will no longer have to incur the time and legal costs of mandatorily pursuing proceedings for probate or letters of administration with respect to a will before the concerned high courts. Given the deep historical roots of Section 213, there are important elements for families to consider. A key benefit of Section 213 was the formal verification of the genuineness of a will by a legal authority.

For instance, a probate petition before the Testamentary Registrar of the Bombay High Court included a robust summary inquiry under the Original Side Rules, wherein notices were issued to other legal heirs and the public. On the filing of any reply challenging the will, the petition would be converted into a civil suit. The grant of probate ensured that the will’s authenticity could not be questioned thereafter, except in cases of fraud.

Potential challenges

With probate or letters of administration no longer mandatory in the three cities, the executor or legatees under the will may start dealing with the estate immediately on demise without any court order. As a result, wills or the administration of estate may be challenged later, even years after the assets have been distributed, once other heirs gain knowledge of these transactions. In light of this risk, families must maintain asset registries and monitor land records, to ensure that the transmission is undertaken lawfully and without misappropriation.

Even elsewhere in India where probate has not been mandatory, in the case of a family dispute on the existence and contents of a will, a probate becomes necessary and advantageous because the executor’s intermediate actions are rendered valid under Section 227 of the ISA. Governmental authorities such as collectors/tahsildars often demand a court order or probate for mutation of new entries when there is a family dispute.

In case of non-resident testators or beneficiaries, banks and financial institutions may request a court order before releasing funds (such as an ancillary probate) when a global will governs Indian assets. Similarly, for Indian domiciles with overseas assets, probate from an Indian court is commonly needed for “resealing” or validation in a foreign jurisdiction. To address these scenarios, an overhaul of the existing high court rules may be necessary. Accordingly, the high courts of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta are likely to continue voluntary probate applications, though they are no longer compulsory.

Transitional considerations

Some potential controversy may arise in how the newly enacted law applies. Section 4 of the Act contains a savings provision, which clarifies that the repeal will not affect existing acts, rights, obligations, liabilities, or proceedings. This is particularly significant because there is no strict limitation period for applications for probate or letters of administration. Though courts generally apply a three-year time limit under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963, applications may be filed later if there is a sufficient cause demonstrated for the delay. As a result, families may approach the courts many years after a person’s death.

The courts may need to determine whether the Act only applies to estates of persons who died after the Act came into force, or whether probate or letters of administration are no longer required from 21 December onwards, irrespective of when the death occurred. However, the erstwhile law may still apply to uncontested petitions awaiting resolution before the high courts.

Conclusion

While the Act is a welcome step towards streamlining succession laws across the country, given the increasing propensity for testamentary disputes, individuals may consider alternate methods of succession planning, such as the creation of private trusts, during their lifetimes.

The author is Partner, Khaitan & co. and The author is Associate, Khaitan & co.