Delhi High Court
Geetika Verma vs State on 17 July, 2014
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: July 17, 2014
+ I.A. No.7891/2014 in Test Case 93/2012
GEETIKA VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Sana Ansari, Adv. along with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The abovementioned application has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking certain directions to the
effect that the Registry be asked to accept personal bond instead of
Administration Bond with one surety. The facts of the matter are that
the above said probate petition was disposed of on 27th March, 2014.
The probate of the Will dated 14th October, 1996 was granted. The
Registry issued the letter dated 5th April, 2014 directing the petitioner
to file Administrative Bond with one surety. The petitioner was also
called upon to give valuation of the property as well as that of
movable assets.
2. The valuation report has already been filed. As regards the
requirement of Administrative Bond, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Will dated 14th October, 1996 specifically
states that the beneficiary will not be required to furnish security,
surety bond with regard to the grant of probate/Letters of
Administration. It is argued by the learned counsel that the Registry
cannot ask the petitioner to furnish administration/surety bond for
administration of estate bequeathed to her in view of Section 291 of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted the valuation report
from the competent Authority. In the affidavit filed, it has come on
record that there are no movable assets left by the deceased
Ms.Urmilla Devi. The Schedule-A of the affidavit also mentioned only
the immovable property bearing Flat No.12-A, Ground Floor, LIG,
DDA Flats, Tamoor Nagar, New Delhi-110065.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her
submissions, has referred three decisions of this Court. The details
of the same are given as under:-
(i) Richa Pardeshi vs. State, reported in 2012 (131) DRJ 92.
(ii) Sanjay Suri vs. State and others, reported in AIR 2004
Delhi 9.
(iii) Ved Prakash Vadrea and Anr. vs. The State and others,
Test. Cas. No.92/2008, decided on 22nd August, 2013.
5. The detailed decision has been given in Test. Cas. No.80/2010,
Richa Pardeshi (supra), in paras 13 & 15 whereof, the Court held as
under:-
"13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, and I
think rightly so, that there is no reason why the
enunciation of the law relating to aforesaid case
dispensing with furnishing of administration/surety bond in
the case of a sole beneficiary under a Will should not be
made applicable to the case of a sole beneficiary upon
whom the estate of the deceased devolves by intestate
succession. The object of the law of Succession, be it
testamentary or intestate in nature, is to enable the Court
to lend its seal of approval to the succession of the estate
of the deceased. It is trite that the judgment given in the
exercise of both testamentary and intestate succession is
a judgment "in rem".
14. x x x x x
15. In view of the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that to hold
that Section 291 envisages the furnishing of an
administration bond by a sole beneficiary or a sole
legatee would lead to absurd consequences, for, the said
sole beneficiary/sole legatee would then be standing
surety for the estate of the deceased, which has
exclusively devolved upon him, and it would be
paradoxical to hold that a person can stand surety for
himself."
6. Following all the three decisions referred by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the present application is allowed. The
Registry is directed to accept the Personal Bond instead of
Administration Bond.
7. The application is accordingly disposed of.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2014
