Delhi High Court
Ishwar Devi Grover & Ors. vs State on 6 October, 2016
$~40.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 83/2013
ISHWAR DEVI GROVER & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sandeep P. Agarwal, Mr.Rajesh
Pathak and Mr.Manjeet Kirpal, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 06.10.2016
I.A. 11580/2016
1. This is an application filed by petitioners/applicants seeking exemption
from furnishing administrative bond and surety.
2. In this case, the petitioners had filed the present petition under Sections
222, 224 and 276 read with Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act
for grant of a probate with respect to the Will dated 4.3.2013 of late
Sh.Bhagwan Dass Grover. Vide order dated 23.7.2014, the present
petition, which was uncontested, was allowed and probate was granted
to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the legal heirs of
late Sh.Bhagwan Dass Grover, who are the beneficiaries of the Will
dated 4.3.2013, are the petitioners herein. Counsel further submits that
since all the legal heirs are beneficiaries of the Will dated 4.3.2013 of
late Sh.Bhagwan Dass Grover, the requirement of furnishing the
administrative bond and the surety may be dispensed with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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. Counsel further submits that similarly in the case of Sanjay Suri v.
State, reported at 2003 (71) DRJ 446, the Court has exempted the
petitioner from furnishing administrative bond. Relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:
"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. Heard counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions
made and taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the case of
Shambhu P. Jaisinghani (supra) and Sanjay Suri (supra) and having
regard to the fact that in the present case, all the petitioners are
beneficiaries to the Will dated 4.3.2013, present application is
allowed. Furnishing the administrative bond and surety is dispensed
with.
7. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 06, 2016
msr
