HIMA KOHLI, J.

I.A. 2255/2015 (by the petitioners for exemption from furnishing the surety)

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia that they be exempted from furnishing a surety in terms of the order dated 18.09.2013, whereunder letters of administration have been granted in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the estate of their deceased father, late Shri Tarini Prasad Sinha.

2. The petitioners, who are siblings, had filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying inter alia that letters of administration be granted in respect of the estate of their father, late Shri Tarini Prasad Sinha. The said petition was uncontested and after the petitioners filed their evidence, the same was allowed. Vide order dated 18.09.2013, letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased were granted in favour of the petitioner No.1, subject to payment of the requisite court fee, valuation of the Gurgaon property and upon his furnishing an Administration Bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar General.

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that after the aforesaid order was passed, the valuation of the Gurgaon property owned by the deceased was received from the office of the District Collector, Gurgaon and his entire estate has been collectively valued at Rs.6,37,60,383/-. Based on the aforesaid valuation, the petitioner No.1 has deposited the court fee stamps worth Rs.25,50,427.32 paise in the Registry and he has also filed an Administration Bond under Section 291 of the Act on 3.4.2014. The present application has been filed by the petitioners praying that petitioner No.1 be exempted from furnishing a surety for the estate of the deceased on the plea that a surety is required to be furnished to safeguard the ultimate interest of the heirs and in the instant case, all the three petitioners are the legal heirs and the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased in respect whereof, letters of administration have been granted and further, no objection has been given by the petitioners No.2 and 3 for grant of the letters of administration in favour of the petitioner No.1, who has been authorized to administer the estate of the deceased. In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a surety bond for a nominal amount may be permitted to be filed by the petitioner No.1. To seek exemption from furnishing a surety, learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to and relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Ramachandra Ramratan vs.Ramgopal Onnkarji and Ors. reported as AIR 1957 MP 31

(ii) Sanjay Suri vs. State And Ors. reported as 2003 (71) DRJ 446

(iii) Sudershan K. Chopra vs. State and Ors. reported as 2006 87 DRJ 257

(iv) Ira Kapoor vs. State reported as 2011 SCC Online Delhi 2840

4. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a self-contained Code insofar as the question of making an application for grant or refusal of probate, and for grant or refusal to grant letters of administration or an appeal against the decision of the probate court. The grant of probate by a court of competent jurisdiction is in the nature of proceedings in rem as long as the order of probate remains in force. It is conclusive as to the proper execution and validity of the will, unless it is duly revoked as per law. A probate order not only binds all the parties impleaded in the proceedings, it also binds other persons in all proceedings arising out of the will or connected therewith (Ref.: Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 507). Similarly, in the case of intestate succession, the letters of administration granted in favour of the administrator is the court’s imprimatur to him to administer the estate of the deceased by paying full expenses, duties, legacy, recover the dues to the estate and retain the residue of the estate. Once the residue