$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11th February, 2026
+ TEST.CAS. 65/2018 & I.A. 4344/2025
JUHI MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amisha Ray, Mr. Rohan Rai,
Advocates (M:7708706788)
versus
STATE OF NCT & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, Advocate for
R-2 to 8
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present application has been filed with the following prayers:
―a. Direct the Registry to do correction in the letter dated 28.01.2025
w.r.t the court fee amount and the correct one is Rs. 5,32,553.28/-;
b. To accept the surety property valued at Rs. 80,81,280/- along with
Administrative Bond and court fees annexed with the Application and
issue letter of probate/administration;
c. Exempt the Applicant from filing surety to the extent of her share in
the suit property, which is amounting to Rs.90,63,832/- and;
d. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.‖
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as prayers (a)
and (b) are concerned, the same already stand satisfied and the corrected
Court Fees after calculation has already been deposited before this Court, as
recorded in the order dated 20th January, 2026. The order dated 20th January,
2026 reads as under:
―I.A. 4344/2025 (For correction in Court fees calculation exemption
from furnishing surety amount of the administrator/applicant to the
extent of her share and to take on record the Court fees,
Administrative Bond and surety)
As per the report of the registry, Court fee amount to Rs.
5,32,553/- is correct as per the valuations received on record.
Learned counsel for petitioner has handed over the physical
copy of the E-Court Fee across the board. The same is taken on
record.
Qua the relief ―exemption from furnishing surety amount of
the administrator/applicant to the extent of her share‖ which is not
within the jurisdiction of this Court, let the matter be placed before
the Hon'ble Court on 10.02.2026.‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. Thus, the present application has been listed today, with regard to the
prayer to exempt the petitioner herein from filing surety to the extent of her
share in the suit property, amounting to Rs. 90,63,832/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
executor of the Will dated 06th April, 2012, and is also a beneficiary of the
said Will, wherein, Flat No. 193, Vishwas Apartments, Plot No. 6A, Sector
23, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075, as well as Flat No. 202, Shanti Niwas
Apartment, Dhirachak, Anisabad, Patna - 800002, have been bequeathed in
favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to
the order dated 03rd May, 2024 passed by this Court, whereby, the Letter of
Administration was granted in favour of the petitioner. She, in particular,
draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 17 of the said order, which
reads as under:
―xxx xxx xxx
17. The Petition is not contested by the Respondents, the other legal
heirs of the deceased. Respondent No. 2 to 8 are beneficiaries under
the Will and have given their No-objection/consent by way of
Affidavits. Also, no third person has filed any objection pursuant to
the citation in the Newspapers.
xxx xxx xxx‖
6. By referring to the aforesaid order dated 03rd May, 2024, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has not been
contested by the respondent nos. 2 to 8, who are the other legal heirs of the
deceased and the beneficiaries under the Will dated 06th April, 2012.
7. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 26 th
May, 2025, wherein, the statement of the learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 to 8 has been recorded to the effect that he has no objection to the
grant of exemption to the petitioner from furnishing surety to the extent of
her share in the properties. The order dated 26th May, 2025 reads as under:
―I.A. 4344/2025 (For correction in Court fees calculation,
exemption from furnishing surety amount of the administrator/
applicant to the extent of her share and to take on record the Court
fees, Administrative Bond and surety)
Learned counsel for R-2 to 8 submits that he has no
objection to the grant of exemption from furnishing surety.
As per the office report, the correct fee to be paid is Rs.
5,32,553.28.
Vide office noting dated 18.02.2025, Court fee along with
administration bond and surety bond has been filed.
Notice of the application be issued to the R-1 to be served by
all permissible modes on filing of PF within four weeks.
Re-notify on 29.08.2025.‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 8
appearing before this Court, confirms and reiterates that respondent nos. 2 to
8 have no objection to the grant of exemption to the petitioner from
furnishing the surety qua her share in the suit properties.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court at the outset
notes the averments made by the petitioner in the present application,
relevant portions of which, read as under:
―xxx xxx xxx
13. It is pertinent to mention that the Applicant is not seeking a
complete exemption from filing surety, but rather a partial
exemption from furnishing surety amount to the extent of her share
in the said property, which is valued at Rs. 90,63,832/-. It is
submitted that the Applicant is furnishing the Administrative Bond
and Surety along with the Property bearing no. C-501, Jagran
Apartments, Plot No. 17, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 as
surety which is valued at Rs. 80,81,280/ as per the valuation report
by SDM vide order dated 18.12.2024 which suffices the surety.
xxx xxx xxx‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that the petitioner has already
furnished a surety in the form of the property bearing No. C-501, Jagran
Apartments, Plot No. 17, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077, which is
valued at Rs. 80,81,280/-.
11. This Court also takes note of the surety bond, furnished on behalf of
the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid property, which reads as under:
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
21:08:25
12. The Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores, as mentioned in the
aforesaid surety bond, includes the value of the properties in favour of the
petitioner, although the said surety bond has been given only with respect to
the two properties, situated in Patna, i.e., Flat No. 203, Shanti Niwas
Apartment, Dhirachak, Anisabad, Patna - 800002 and Flat No. 201, Shanti
Niwas Apartment, Dhirachak, Anisabad, Patna - 800002.
13. The Valuation Report filed by the Executive Magistrate (Dwarka) is
taken note of, which values the aforesaid property at Rs. 80,81,280/-, and is
reproduced as under:
14. Thus, this Court notes that the surety is for a sum of Rs. 80,81,280/-
and that the sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores has been wrongly mentioned in the
aforesaid surety bond.
15. Accordingly, it is noted that the petitioner has already given surety
with respect to the aforesaid two flats, i.e., Flat No. 201 and Flat No. 203,
located in Patna and has sought exemption only with respect to her share,
i.e., properties bequeathed to the petitioner, being Flat No. 193, Vishwas
Apartments, Plot No. 6A, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 and Flat
No. 202, Shanti Niwas Apartment, Dhirachak, Anisabad, Patna - 800002.
16. The principles with respect to the exemption from furnishing the
surety have been laid down by this Court in the case of Arvind Nanda
Versus State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2922, relevant portions of which, are
reproduced as under:
―xxx xxx xxx
7. In Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. Estate of Late Raj Pal
Sharma [W.P.(C) 9108/2011, decided on 02.01.2012] a ld. Division
Bench of this Court, while upholding the Constitutional validity of
Section 375 of the ISA, has clearly observed that the requirement of
furnishing of a security can be exempted depending on the facts of
each case. The observations of the ld. Division Bench are as under:--
"10. Not only so, a bare perusal of Section 375 (supra)
further shows that the furnishing of the security itself is in
the discretion of the Court. It is always open to the grantee to
seek exemption from furnishing of such security. We may
record that this Court in Sudershan K. Chopra
(Smt.) v. State 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 735 following the judgment
of the Calcutta High Court in Manmohini
Dassi v. Taramoni 1929 SCC OnLine Cal 393 : AIR 1929 Cal
733 and finding the grantee to be the sole legetee beneficiary
under the Will of all the properties bequeathed thereunder,
directed furnishing of security bond of a nominal amount only.
Similarly in Asha Sikka v. State 1996 3 AD (Delhi) 967 also
this Court granted Letters of Administration without the
grantee being required to execute any security. A similar view
is found to have been taken by most of the other High Courts
also.
11. We are thus constrained to observe that the challenge to
the vires of Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 predicated on the same being mandatory is misconceived
and in ignorance of law.‖
8. A similar view has been taken by a ld. Single Judge of this Court
in Maninder Singh v. State [Test Cas. No. 106/2014, decided on
22.04.2015] wherein a series of cases granting such an exemption
have been referred to:
"8. There are a stream of cases, where having regard to the
fact that the petitioners in testamentary cases where
probate/letters of administration were sought in respect of the
estate of the deceased, had been exempted from furnishing
Surety Bond/Administration Bond on the ground that the will
was in favour of the natural heirs and there was no contest to
the request for grant of letters of administration/Probate. It
was observed that where the petitioners/applicants were
natural heirs/sole beneficiary of the deceased, any order
directing the said petitioner(s) to stand as an
administrator/surety of the estate of the deceased would
amount to their/his standing surety for themselves/himself.
Some of the decisions on the aforesaid lines are as follows:--
(i) Ramachandra Ramratan v. Ramgopal Onnkarji reported
as AIR 1957 MP 31
(ii) Shambu P. Jaisinghani v. Kanayalal P.
Jaisinghani reported as (1995) 60 DLT 1
(iii) Shakuntala Taxali v. State (Delhi
Administration) reported as (1996) 61 DLT 502
(iv) Sanjay Suri v. State reported as (2003) 71 DRJ 446
(v) Sudershan K. Chopra v. State reported as (2006) 87
DRJ 257
(vi) Ira Kapoor v. State reported as 2011 SCC OnLine Del
2840 . . . . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
10. The settled case law, therefore, clearly lays down the following
principles:--
(1) The imposition of a condition for furnishing an
indemnity/security is at the discretion of the Court.
(2) Whenever the Court is of the opinion that a condition is
required to be imposed due to any debts and the fact that there is
a possibility of other claimants raising claims, the condition may
be imposed.
(3) In every case involving the grant of a succession certificate,
a mechanical approach of imposing a condition for furnishing
the surety/security and insisting on the indemnity bond is not
required.
(4) When an exemption from filing any surety is sought, the
Court has to consider the entire conspectus and exercise its
discretion depending on the facts of each case, in accordance
with law.
(5) As held by the ld. Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh
Kumar Sharma (supra), the imposition of a condition is not
mandatory.
xxx xxx xxx‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. Similarly, in the case of Rajesh Sinha and Ors. Versus State, 2015
SCC OnLine Del 9264, this Court held that the principle of exempting
natural heirs from furnishing surety bonds also finds resonance in cases
where there are more than one beneficiary of the estate of the deceased, in
the following manner:
―xxx xxx xxx
9. On a conspectus of the above legal position on the requirement of
furnishing a surety and Administration Bond, it may be noted that in
a majority of decisions, it has been held that where a sole
beneficiary/legatee is involved, the requirement of offering an
indemnity bond/surety bond is dispensable for the simple reason that
it would be an exercise in futility to call upon a sole
beneficiary/legatee under a will that has been duly proved, to
furnish an Administration Bond/Surety Bond when the estate of the
deceased has been bequeathed in favour of the very same person.
Even when it comes to cases where petitions are filed for grant of
letters of administration under a will, on account of the bar imposed
under Section 222 of the Act that stipulates that probate can be
granted only to an executor appointed by the will, the courts have
ordinarily adopted a liberal approach and have taken a pragmatic
view by holding that judgments pronounced in exercise of
testamentary and intestate succession are in the nature of
proceedings in rem and the statutory provisions and rules are
framed to realize the ultimate objective of succession.
10. Therefore, wherever probate has been sought of the bequest in
favour of the natural heirs, and the petitioners have sought
exemption from furnishing Administration Bonds/Surety Bonds they
have ordinarily been exempted, reason being that a person, who is
the sole beneficiary under a will, is not required to undertake duties
of an administrator who in the said capacity, is expected to maintain
true accounts and a complete inventory of the estate of the deceased
and administer the said estate. The aforesaid line of thought has been
expressed in the cases of Sanjay Suri (supra), Sudershan K.
Chopra (supra) and Richa Pardeshi (supra).
11. The same view finds resonance in cases where there are more
than one beneficiary/legatee of the estate of the deceased. While
reiterating the principle that the objective of testamentary and
intestate jurisdiction is to enable the Court to accord legitimacy and
authenticity by giving its seal of approval to succession of the estate
of the deceased, the courts have observed that the ultimate objective
is of grant of succession and to realize the said objective, the
statutory provisions and rules ought to be interpreted in a manner
that are in furtherance to realizing the intention of the deceased,
instead of obstructing it by getting hypertechnical. At the same time,
the courts have been cautious in cases of intestate succession for the
reason that a greater degree of care is required to be taken when an
administrator is to be appointed with a surety and security taken for
due administration of the estate of the deceased.
12. In the present case, the petitioners are the natural heirs of the
deceased, late Shri Tarini Prasad Sinha. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 have
issued letters of authorization in favour of the petitioner No. 1
authorizing him to pursue the case on their behalf and they have no
objection to the letters of administration being granted in favour of
the petitioner No. 1. The citations that have been issued in the press
have not elicited any objections from any quarter. Being satisfied with
the evidence produced by the petitioners, letters of administration
were granted in favour of the petitioner No. 1, vide order dated
18.9.2013. After the grant of the letters of administration, petitioner
No. 1 has already furnished the Administration Bond and deposited
the court fee stamps and now he seeks exemption from filing the surety
bond.
13. In view of the fact that letters of administration have been granted
to the petitioner No. 1 in the absence of any contest, this Court is of
the opinion that the condition of filing a Security Bond for the entire
value of the estate of the deceased, assessed at Rs. 6,37,60,383/-
would be extremely onerous on him. It is therefore deemed
appropriate to allow the present application and permit the petitioner
No. 1 to furnish a Surety Bond for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs (rupees ten
lacs) as this would serve the purpose without unnecessarily burdening
him. Needful shall be done within two weeks.
xxx xxx xxx‖
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court notes that the
petitioner herein is a natural heir of the deceased, i.e., Late Shri Diva Kant
Thakur, as she is the eldest daughter of the deceased. Further, the present
petition has been uncontested by the other respondents, i.e., respondent nos.
2 to 8, being the other legal heirs of the deceased and beneficiaries under the
Will in question.
19. By way of the present application, the petitioner only seeks exemption
from filing surety qua her share in the suit properties, that is, properties qua
which the petitioner is the sole beneficiary. Thus, in view of the limited
relief sought in the present application, and considering that the other
respondents, i.e., respondent nos. 2 to 8 have given their no objection with
respect to grant of exemption to the petitioner from furnishing the surety for
her share in the suit properties, this Court finds no impediment in passing
orders in favour of the petitioner.
20. This Court notes that surety with respect to the other properties
situated in Patna already stands filed by the petitioner before this Court.
21. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court,
there being no objection from any quarter, the petitioner is exempted from
furnishing surety to the extent of her share in the suit properties, as noted
above.
22. The present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2026/au
