Back
High Court Of Delhi
SANJAY SURI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
PROB.C.P. 49 of 2000
Decided On : 10/20/2003
Section 291 — Administration bond — Exemption — Requirement for the execution of an administration bond — Section 291 has to be interpreted so as not being applicable to a case of a sole beneficiary and legal heir, under a duly proved Will insofar as requirement of furnishing an administration bond is concerned — Petitioner exempted from furnishing of an administration bond.
Held:
Considering the nature of the Testamentary and Intestate succession, the object and purpose sought to be achieved by Section 291 and thus applying the aforesaid principles of interpretation of statutes, it would be seen that Section 291 of the. Act is not intended to cover within its ambit the cases of a sole beneficiary and legal heir under a Will being required to furnish administration/surety bond. One cannot administer the estate or his own estate against himself, for which he be required to give an indemnity or administration bond. Besides, none of the purposes and objectives of Section 291 of the Act are covered or fulfillled by the execution of an administration/surety bond by the sole inheritor or beneficiary under the Will duly proved. Such an exercise would be an exercise in futility. In the instant case if the petitioners grand son was to mismanage or maladminister, he would be doing so only against his own and personal interests. A right that clearly vests in him by virtue of the bequest. Hence insistence of furnishing the administration bond in the present case would not only be meaningless and without any purpose, but inconsistent with succession. Section 291 in the tight of the foregoing principles of interpretation, as noticed, has to be interpreted so as not being applicable to a case of a sole beneficiary and legal heir, under a duly proved Will insofar as requirement of furnishing an administration bond is concerned.
( 1 ). PETITIONER, Sanjay Suri filed a petition for grant of probate/ Letters of Administration under Section 278 read with Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act (in short the Act) and seeking a probate in respect of the will of the deceased Smt. Kaushalya Devi dated 6. 7. 1993. The petition was instituted in May, 1998. However, the same was not registered on account of objections of non-filing of the affidavit regarding valuation of property. Petition was registered in September, 2000 on valuation being filed and issues were framed on 25. 9. 2000.
( 2 ). THE deceased Kaushalya Devi, widow of late Sh. Khub Chand Suri expired on 22. 3. 1997. Her husband, Sh. Khub Chand Suri, who owned property bearing Municipal No. WZ-177, G Block, Hari Nagar, jail Road, New Delhi pre-deceased her on 4. 11. 1969. Late Sh. Khub Chand Suri and Smt. Kaushalya Devi had only one issue, namely, late Sh. Siri Ram Suri. Late Sh. Khub Chand Suri left behind the following legal heirs.
I)SMT. KAUSHAYLA Devi- Widow of Shri Khubchand Suri ii)Legal heirs of pre-deceased son Sh. Siri Ram Suri, who died intestate. a) Smt. Kaushalya Devi being Mother b)Smt. Asha Suri w/o Sh. Siri Ram Suri c)Kiran Sabhawal d/o Sh. Siri Ram Suri d)Manisha Chaudhary d/o Sh. Siri Ram Suri e)Ritu Chhatwal d/o Sh. Siri Ram Suri f)Sanjay Suri s/o Sh. Siri Ram Suri.
( 3 ). PETITIONER s case is that on the death of Sh. Khub Chand Suri, who died intestate, half of the property devolved upon Smt. Kaushayla Devi and the other half of the property devolved upon the legal heirs of Siri Ram Suri in equal share. It is claimed that the petitioner, his mother, respondent No. 2 and daughters of Siri Ram Suri, namely, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 relinquished their respective shares in the property bearing municipal No. WZ-177, G-Block, Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Based on such relinquishment, the Municipal Corporation, it is stated, mutated the property in favour of Smt. Kaushalya Devi.
( 4 ). PETITIONER seeks probate/letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 6. 7. 1993, by which the deceased Smt. Kaushalya Devi bequeathed the immovable property, namely, WZ-177, G-Block, Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi in favour of her grand son, petitioner, together with land and super structure thereon. The Will had been duly registered as document No. 29535 in book B Volume 1996 at pages 170-177 on 6. 7. 1993 in the office of the Sub-registrar, New Delhi. Notice to the aforesaid near relations, namely, Smt. Asha Suri, Smt. Kiran Sabharwal, Smt. Manisha Chaudhary, Smt. Ritu Chhatwal, respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 respectively, were duly issued. Citation was also published in "the Hindu" in the Coimbature and "statesman", New Delhi. Notices were duly issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority. Respondents were duly served.
( 5 ). WRITTEN statement and objections were filed by the above respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It was claimed that the Will was forged and fabricated one. It was also claimed that no relinquishment had been executed on 23. 8. 1989 by the respondents and petitioner in favour of Smt. Kaushalya Devi and she could not have executed the Will for the entire property. She could have bequeathed only her share. It was alleged that the petitioner had played a fraud.
( 6 ). AS noted earlier, issues were framed and the case had been listed for evidence of the petitioner. It is at this stage that the parties had moved IA. No. 7688/2003 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 23. 7. 2003 for recording of the compromise and passing a preliminary decree and allowing the probate petition. The said application was accompanied by the affidavits of the parties and a Memorandum of Understanding. During the course of hearing, it was made clear to the parties that a petition for grant of probate/letters of Administration would not be granted on the basis of a compromise application. As of necessity, due execution of the Will has to be proved. Petitioner and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
