Probate is no longer a mandatory precondition to establishing your rights under a will in India. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was omitted in its entirety by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on 20 December 2025. A beneficiary or an executor can now rely on the will itself in court proceedings, without first spending a year and an ad valorem court fee obtaining a grant.
This is the most consequential change to Indian succession practice in a generation, and in my experience most families still have not been told. Banks, cooperative housing societies and even some lawyers are continuing to ask for probate as though nothing happened. This piece sets out what actually changed, what did not, and how to decide whether to take probate anyway. If you are an heir living abroad, our NRI succession and inheritance practice page covers how these matters are run without you travelling to India.
What Section 213 actually said
Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was a bar on the courtroom door. In substance it provided that no right as executor or legatee could be established in any court of justice unless a court of competent jurisdiction had granted probate of the will, or letters of administration with the will annexed.
It did not apply to everyone. Read with Section 57, the requirement bit on wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Parsis where the will was made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, or where it related to immovable property situated within those limits. Muslims were outside it altogether.
Key takeaway. Section 213 was never a national rule. It was a colonial-era provision tied to three presidency towns, which is precisely why Parliament described it as discriminatory and inconsistent when repealing it. A will made in Bengaluru concerning Bengaluru property was already outside the mandatory probate requirement.
That geographic limitation is worth pausing on, because it explains a great deal of the confusion in Karnataka. Bengaluru is not a former presidency town. For decades, probate has been optional here for most wills, and yet banks and societies routinely demanded it anyway. The repeal removes the last shred of legal cover for that demand.
Three features defined how far the old provision actually reached.
Section 213(1)
No right as executor or legatee could be established in any court of justice unless probate of the will, or letters of administration with the will annexed, had been granted.
Who it bound
Read with Section 57 it bit on wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Parsis. Muslims were outside it altogether.
Three presidency towns
It applied only where the will was made within the original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, or covered immovable property there.
What the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 did
The Act omitted Section 213 completely. It also removed the reference to "213" from Section 3(1) of the Succession Act, which was the provision allowing State Governments to exempt certain classes of persons, and made a consequential amendment to Section 370.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons put the rationale plainly: the section created a requirement that applied unevenly across communities and territories, and served no purpose that the ordinary law of evidence could not serve. Parliament chose uniformity by removing the obligation rather than by extending it.
Importantly, the rest of the probate machinery survives. Sections 222 onwards, dealing with who may apply for probate, and Section 276, dealing with the petition, remain on the statute book. Letters of administration remain available. Succession certificates under Sections 370 to 390 are untouched in substance. What has gone is the compulsion, not the option.
What changes in practice
| Situation | Before 20 December 2025 | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Suing to enforce a legacy under a will covered by S.213 | Suit not maintainable until probate obtained. Court would not look at the will. | You may rely on the will directly, proving it in the ordinary way. |
| Bank refusing to release a deposit | Bank could point to S.213 as statutory backing for demanding probate. | That statutory basis is gone. The demand is now a matter of internal policy, which can be challenged. |
| Housing society refusing transfer of a flat | Same as above. | Same as above. The society must justify the demand on its own bye-laws, not on the Act. |
| Contested will | Probate proceedings were the forum in which the contest played out. | Unchanged in substance. A disputed will still has to be proved, and probate is often still the cleanest forum. |
| Time and cost at the outset | Six to eighteen months and ad valorem court fee before anything else could begin. | Can be avoided where the will is clear and undisputed. |
What the repeal does not change
This is where I see the most dangerous over-reading. Five things are exactly as they were.
One. You still have to prove the will. Removing the probate requirement did not make wills self-proving. Under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the successor to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a document required by law to be attested cannot be used in evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called, where such a witness is alive and capable of giving evidence. The proviso that spares registered documents from this requirement expressly excludes wills. A registered will is not a shortcut.
Two. Suspicious circumstances still shift the burden. Where the propounder of a will took a benefit under it, or the testator was frail, or the signature is doubtful, the court expects those suspicions to be dispelled. That body of law is intact.
Three. Section 213 was never the only reason to take probate. A grant is a judgment in rem. It binds the world, not just the parties. Where you expect a challenge, that finality is the whole point.
Four. Nomination still does not equal inheritance. If a nominee has already collected the asset, your problem is recovery from the nominee, not probate. The Supreme Court settled the principle for company shares in Shakti Yezdani v Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, decided on 14 December 2023, holding that nomination under the Companies Act confers no absolute title and does not create an alternative mode of succession.
Five. Intestate estates are unaffected. Section 213 was about wills. If there is no will, you are in the same place as before: a legal heir certificate, a succession certificate under Section 372, or letters of administration, depending on the asset. Our guide on choosing between a succession certificate, a legal heir certificate and probate works through that decision.
Common mistake. Treating the repeal as permission to skip legal process entirely. It removes one procedural gate. It does not turn a contested estate into an uncontested one, and it does not relieve you of proving that the will is genuine.
The repeal removed one gate. These parts of the law sit exactly where they were.
The will still needs proving
Under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 an attesting witness must be called, and the exemption for registered documents expressly excludes wills.
Suspicious circumstances
Where the propounder took a benefit, the testator was frail or the signature is doubtful, the court still expects those suspicions to be dispelled.
Probate binds the world
A grant is a judgment in rem. It binds the world and not just the parties, which is the whole point where a challenge is expected.
Intestate estates untouched
Section 213 was about wills. With no will you still need a legal heir certificate, a succession certificate under Section 372, or letters of administration.
So should you still take probate?
The question has moved from "must I" to "is it worth it". Here is the framework I use with clients.
- Is the will likely to be challenged? If there is a disinherited child, a second marriage, a late-in-life will, or a beneficiary who also arranged the drafting, take probate. The judgment in rem is worth the cost and the wait.
- Are the attesting witnesses traceable and healthy? If they are elderly or already untraceable, moving now to prove the will while evidence exists is worth far more than the fee saved by waiting.
- Are there foreign assets or a foreign executor? Overseas institutions frequently want a court grant regardless of Indian law. Ancillary grants and foreign recognition are smoother with probate in hand.
- Is the estate mostly bank deposits and securities? If there is no will, a succession certificate is the cheaper and faster instrument. If there is a will and the bank is cooperative, you may need neither.
- Is an institution refusing to move? Write first. A letter setting out the repeal and asking the branch to identify the legal basis for its demand resolves a surprising number of these without litigation.
What this means if you are an NRI
For heirs abroad, the repeal removes the single biggest source of dead time in an Indian succession matter. The old sequence was: instruct a lawyer, execute a power of attorney, file for probate, wait a year for a grant, and only then approach the bank or the sub-registrar. The new sequence can begin at the bank.
Two cautions specific to NRI estates. First, if the deceased held agricultural land, a farmhouse or plantation property, remember that Rule 24 of the FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 bars an NRI or OCI from purchasing such property but permits inheriting it. The route by which it reaches you matters, and a family arrangement that looks like a transfer rather than an inheritance can create a FEMA problem where none existed.
Second, getting the money out is a separate exercise from getting the title. Remittance from an NRO account is generally capped at USD 1 million per financial year, after Indian tax and the filing of Form 15CA and a chartered accountant's Form 15CB. That ceiling is aggregate for the year, not per asset.
In practice, what I tell clients is this: the repeal saves you a year at the front end, and you should spend two weeks of it getting the asset list and the witness details right. The estates that go wrong are almost never the ones that chose the wrong instrument. They are the ones where nobody wrote down who witnessed the will, or where a bank account surfaced in month nine.
What to do now
- Locate the original will, not a photocopy. Note where it is held and who holds it.
- Trace the attesting witnesses while you still can. Record names, current addresses and phone numbers in writing. This single step prevents more litigation than any other.
- List every Indian asset: property, bank accounts, deposits, demat holdings, mutual funds, insurance, provident fund and any nomination recorded against each.
- Approach institutions in writing and ask them to state the legal basis for any probate demand.
- Decide on probate deliberately, using the framework above, rather than by default in either direction.
If you are on the other side of this and still have the chance to plan, the better answer is to make a clean India-specific will now. Our guide on how an NRI should make a will for Indian assets covers execution, attestation and the revocation clause that trips up people who hold wills in two countries.
Related guides and where to get help
- Succession Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate or Probate: Which One Do You Need?
- How an NRI Should Make a Will for Indian Assets
- Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11: A Guide
Frequently Asked Questions
Is probate now abolished in India?
No. The requirement to obtain probate before establishing rights under certain wills has been abolished. Probate itself still exists and can still be applied for. The change is from mandatory to optional.
When did the change take effect?
The Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 received Presidential assent on 20 December 2025.
Did the repeal affect wills made before that date?
Section 213 was a procedural bar on establishing rights in court. Since the bar itself has been removed, proceedings taken after the repeal are not obstructed by it. Where a probate petition was already pending, take specific advice on whether to continue it, because in a contested estate there is usually a good reason to.
Can a bank still insist on probate?
A bank can set its own internal requirements, but it can no longer point to Section 213 as the legal basis. In practice, a written request asking the branch to identify the statutory basis for the demand often resolves the matter.
Was Section 57 also repealed?
No. The 2025 Act omitted Section 213 and made consequential changes to Sections 3(1) and 370. Section 57 remains, though its practical significance is much reduced now that the provision it fed into is gone.
Does this apply to Muslims?
Section 213 never applied to Muslim wills, so nothing changes there. Muslim succession continues to be governed by the applicable personal law.
Do I still need a succession certificate for bank deposits?
If the deceased left no will, yes, that is usually still the right instrument for debts and securities under Section 372. The repeal concerned wills.
Is a registered will now enough on its own?
No. Under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 a will must still be proved by calling an attesting witness, and the exemption for registered documents specifically excludes wills.
