Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. The only question that we have to decide in this case is whether the certificate of the Administrator-General granted to the plaintiff entitles him to sue for possession of the plaint property without taking out probate of the will under which he claimed as legatee-a will which was made in Bombay and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Hindu Wills Act.
2. If the certificate of the Administrator-General did not entitle him to sue without taking out probate he would be bound by Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act which is incorporated in the Hindu Wills Act to take out probate before he could establish his right as a legatee.
3. The certificate of the Administrator-General was granted under Section 36 of the Administrator-General's Act, which states that in cases where the Administrator-General is satisfied that the assets do not exceed one thousand rupees in value, he may, if he thinks fit, if requested so to do by writing, under the hand of the executor or the widow or other person entitled to administer the effects of the deceased, grant to any person claiming, otherwise than as a creditor, to be entitled to a share of such assests, certificates under his hand, entitling the claimant to receive the property therein mentioned, belonging to the estate of the deceased, for value not exceeding in the whole one thousand rupees.
4. That provision we think implies that the certificate when granted will as a matter of law entitle the claimant to receive the property. That provision of the Administrator-General's Act is not affected by the incorporation in the Hindu Wills Act of the Section 187 of the Succession Act, is clear from Section 5 of the Hindu Wills Act which provides that nothing contained in this Act shall affect the rights, duties and privileges of the Administrator-General of Bengal, Madras and Bombay respectively.
5. The plaintiff therefore was entitled to maintain this suit. We confirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.