Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3530 (DEL)

SANJEEV KUMAR JUNEJA v. STATE

2016-10-06

G.S.SISTANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : G.S. SISTANI, J. I.A. No. 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 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 vs. Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani, reported at 1995 (34) DRJ 704 , the Court while relying upon a decision rendered in the case of Subhash Chopra vs. State, Probate Case No. 12/1987, 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. 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. 12/1987 titled as Subhash Chopra vs. State, decided on 26.7.1989.” 5. Further in an another decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Suri vs. 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: “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 malad-minister, he would be doing so only against his own and personal interests. Such an exercise would be an exercise in futility. In the instant case if the petitioner's grand son was to mismanage or malad-minister, 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.