IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Rita Narang & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No.797/2015 in Test. Cas. No.11/2011
Decided on : 07-08-2015
Exemption - Probate of Will - Indian Succession Act - Section 276, Section 291 - Summary: The court decided on an application for exemption from filing administration cum security bond under Section 151 CPC. The petitioners sought probate of a Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. The court referred to judgments in similar cases to exempt the petitioners from furnishing an Administration Bond, considering them as sole beneficiaries under the Will.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought probate of a Will for a freehold flat. They were directed to deposit a blank court fee and execute an administration bond with sureties. The petitioners, being housewives, faced difficulty in procuring sureties due to lack of income and cooperation from joint property holders.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to judgments exempting sole beneficiaries from furnishing an Administration Bond and held that the condition of filing Administration and Security Bond for the entire value of the estate is to be recalled, allowing the petitioners to furnish a personal bond instead.
Issues: Exemption from filing administration cum security bond under Section 151 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judgments exempting sole beneficiaries from furnishing an Administration Bond, considering them as sole beneficiaries under the Will.
Final Decision: The petitioners were permitted to furnish a personal bond before the Registrar General within four weeks.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. By way of this order I propose to decide an application being I.A. No. 797/2015 under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners for exemption from filing administration cum security bond.
2. The petitioners filed the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate of Will dated 14th May, 2007 executed by late Shri Har Kishan Singh Bhandari in respect of property a freehold flat bearing No.221, RPS, Shiekh Sarai-I, New Delhi-110017 which was disposed of by order dated 13th September, 2013 and a corrigendum was issued on 20th November, 2013 by this Court.
3. It is stated that the petitioners got the evaluation of the estate of the deceased carried out by evaluator which was total of Rs.22,22,000/-. The petitioners received notice from the Registrar of this Court directing them to deposit blank court fee of Rs.1,05,872/- along with duly executed administration bond along with two sureties.
4. Accordingly the petitioners furnished the Administration Bond and affidavits of sureties namely Shri Rakesh Puri and Shri Ashok Aggarwal. However it was found that the property furnished by Shri Rakesh Puri was under mortgage and the property furnished by Shri Ashok Aggarwal was under joint name and the joint property holder was unable to procure his consent on the day of hearing. The counsel for the petitioners requested for more time to furnish a fresh administration bond and sureties and thus the matter was adjourned by the Registrar General.
5. It is stated that the petitioners are housewives and have no source of income. The petitioner No.1 is separated from her husband and is having great difficulty in procuring a surety as she has no job. She is currently staying with her daughter and has no other means of obtaining surety of such a high amount. She has no other property in her exclusive name. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 is a housewife and all properties owned by her is in the joint name of her husband who is refusing to co-operate with her and despite efforts she has been unable to secure the consent of the joint property holder.
6. It is further stated that the petitioners along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are natural heirs of the deceased. The petitioners along with the respondent No.2 and 3 are also the class 1 legal heirs of the deceased and there was no objection from any other party during the course of the proceedings in the suit. Furthermore, respondent No.2 and 3 did not put any objection to the decreeing of letter of administration with annexed Will.
7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Sinha & Ors. vs. State in Test Case 84/2011 decided on 6th April, 2015 wherein it was held as under:-
“7. The aforesaid aspect was examined in some depth by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Suri vs. State 2003 (71) DRJ 446, where counsel for the petitioner had argued that the requirement of execution of a bond should not operate in the case of a sole beneficiary under a will to whom letters of administration are granted. After taking into consideration the requirement for execution of an Administration Bond as prescribed under the statute, the petitioner therein was exempted from furnishing the same in the light of the following observations:-
“21. The crux of the matter arising for consideration is whether a sole beneficiary under a Will, which has been duly proved, should be required to execute an administration bond for the administration of an estate, which is bequeathed to him and to which there are no other claimants. It is only on account of statutory bar under Section 222 of the Act, the said sole beneficiary and natural heir not being an executor, is not being granted the probate. It is not in dispute that had he been appointed the executor, there would have been no requirement or insistence on furnishing a surety or administration bond.
22. It would be seen that none of the duties of the Administrator as noticed in the preceding para-16 a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.