$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 05.02.2026 + TEST.CAS. 47/2024 ANUPAM KAPUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Adv.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pavitra Kaur and Ms. Shreya Mishra, Advs. for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)

I.A. 3188/2026 (under Section 151 CPC seeking clarification regarding the mode of furnishing deficient surety amount)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC by the petitioner seeking clarity with respect to the mode through which the deficient amount of surety required for the grant of Letter of Administration maybe provided bythe petitioner.

2. Mr. Dhairya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 26.03.2025, the Letter of Administration was directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner, subject to petitioner’s furnishing the bond, as well as, payment of the applicable court fee.

3. He submits that the Court Fee has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also furnished an administration bond dated 06.06.2025 in terms of Section 291 of the India Succession Act, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’). Surety bond was furnished by surety namely, Sh. Alok Lal giving property bearing Plot no. 243, Sector 17, Urban Estate Gurgaon, Residential, 1 Kanal Measuring 480.00 sq mtrs as surety. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.07.2025 the learned Joint Registrar called upon the Sub-Registrar and the SDM to submit a valuation report of the said property, which was valued by the SDM at Rs. 3,96,77,539 /-. Accordingly, there was deficit of Rs 1,36,54,841/- in the surety amount. Hence, the present application has been filed.

4. Mr. Gupta submits that though the prayer has been made to seek clarification as to the mode of furnishing the deficient amount of surety but since the petition was never contested and there is no other legal heir or any relative of the deceased except the petitioner, the petitioner/applicant may be exempted from furnishing surety for the deficit amount being the sole beneficiaryof the estate.

5. The attention of the Court has been invited to Section 291 of the Act, as well as, the decision of this Court in Sanjay Suri vs. State and Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 966.

6. Section 291 of the Act provides that the District Judge may demand from the person to whom the Letter of Administration has been granted, a bond with one or more sureties. This Court in Sanjay Suri (supra) observed that Section 291 of the Act has to be interpreted, so as not being applicable to a case of sole beneficiary and legal heir. The relevant extract from the said decision reads thus:

“28. 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 fulfilled 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 petitioner's 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 light of the foregoing principles of interpretation, as noticed, has to be interpreted so as not