Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja & Ors vs State on 6 October, 2016
$~41.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 56/2015
% Judgment dated 6 th October, 2016
SANJEEV KUMAR JUNEJA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Rajesh Banati and Mr.Vikram
Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (Oral)
I.A. 11806/2016
1. This is an application filed by petitioners/applicants seeking exemption
from filing surety bond with surety documents.
2. In this case, the petitioners had filed the present petition under Section
372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a Succession Certificate
in respect of shares, debentures and securities owned by their mother,
late Smt.Krishna Kumari Juneja. Vide judgment dated 16.12.2015, the
present petition was allowed and a Succession Certificate was granted
in favour of petitioner no.1 with respect to 2240 shares (2040+200)
held by late Smt.Krishna Kumari Juneja with Hindustan Lever Limited.
Petitioner no.1 was also directed to pay the requisite court fees on the
value of the shares as reflected by the NSE on 3.7.2005 and furnish the
requisite Administrative Bond and Security Bond.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court fee in the sum
of Rs.51,772/- has been deposited on 10.2.2016 and the Administrative
CS(OS).56/2015 Page 1 of 4
Bond also stands deposited on 17.2.2016. Counsel further submits that
the legal heirs of late Smt.Krishna Kumari Juneja are the three sons,
who are the petitioners herein. It is contended that all the petitioners
contested the matter jointly, petitioners no.2 and 3 had filed their
affidavits giving no objection and in the order dated 16.12.2015 it has
been recorded by the Court that petitioners no.2 and 3 had made a
statement before the Joint Registrar on 14.12.2015 that they do not
have any objection if a Succession Certificate is granted in favour of
petitioner no.1. Counsel, in these circumstances, prays that furnishing
of Surety Bond be dispensed with.
4. Heard. In the case of Shambhu P. Jaisinghani v. Kanayalal P.
Jaisinghani, reported at 1995 (34) DRJ 704, the Court while relying
upon a decision rendered in the case of Subhash Chopra, etc. v. State,
Probate Case No.12/87, has held that it would not be necessary for the
petitioner therein to furnish the administrative bond as the mother
therein had bequeathed the property to her natural heirs. Relevant
portion of the judgment reads as under:
"8. The Will is executed by the mother in favour of the sons.
As the mother has bequeathed the property to her natural heirs,
it is not necessary to order the petitioner to give the
administrative bond. This view is taken by this Court in the case
of Probate Case No.12/87 titled as Subhash Chopra, etc. Vs.
State, decided on 26.7.1989."
5. Further in an another decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Suri v.
State, reported at 2003 (71) DRJ 446, the Court has exempted the
petitioner from furnishing the administrative bond. Relevant portion of
the judgment reads as under:
CS(OS).56/2015 Page 2 of 4
"16. Section 291 of the Act, requires furnishing of an
administration bond. The object of an administration bond is to
secure due and proper administration of the estate of the
deceased in which the executors and administrators have to
discharge multifarious duties in respect of the estate. The
administrator is to pay full expenses, duties, legacy, retain the
residue of the estate, recover the due to the estate. Once the
residue has been determined, the executor or administrator are
to pay the residuary legacy in case there is a kin. The
administrators or the executors are required to maintain true
account and complete inventory of assets of the deceased and to
administer the estate of the deceased and to file true and
complete account of the administrator.
.......
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
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
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 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."
6. In the present case, the testator dies leaving behind petitioners herein.
No objection was filed in favour of petitioner no.1. Accordingly,
having regard to the submissions made, taking into consideration the
statement made by petitioners no.2 and 3 and in view of the law laid
down in Shambhu P. Jaisinghani (supra) and Sanjay Suri (supra),
present application is allowed. Petitioner no.1 is dispensed with from
furnishing the surety bond. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 06, 2016
msr
