Ravi Mohan Kaul v. State & Ors

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.

...

¶28Considering 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 fulfilled 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."

¶14In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Petitioner has proved his case. The attesting witness PW-2 has categorically stated that the Will bears the signature of Smt. Pushpa Rani Bahri on all pages. He also confirmed that he had signed the Will and the second witness had signed the Will in his presence and that there was no force or coercion in the execution of the Will. He also confirmed that all the executants and the other witnesses including himself, went to the office

of Sub-Registrar-V for getting the will registered.

¶15The Petitioner is entitled to grant of probate. The probate of Will dated 25th October, 2011 is granted subject to the furnishing of the court fee in terms of the valuation report filed by the SDM, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Exemption as prayed for from furnishing of sureties and administration bond is granted as per the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Juneja (Supra)."

To the same effect is the judgment in Rita Narang and Anr. v The State & Ors. Test Cas. 11/2011 (Decided on 7th August, 2015) cited by the Petitioner.

¶7In the present case, the Petitioner is the natural heir of the deceased who is also stated to be in possession of part of the property. The Court is satisfied that the affidavits of the other legal heirs coupled with the No Objection Certificates issued by them entitle the Petitioner to relief. The furnishing of administrative-cum-surety bond requirement is accordingly dispensed with. Let the probate be issued upon verifying the payment of Court fee.

¶8With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 18, 2019 dj

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18th December, 2019 + RAVI MOHAN KAUL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Mohan Kaul, Petitioner in person. versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Advocate for R- 1. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. A probate petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed by the Petitioner -Mr. Ravi Mohan Kaul, the son of late Mr. P.N. Kaul. The Respondents, apart from the State, are the wife of Late Mr. P.N. Kaul - Ms. Prabha Kaul; the second son - Mr. Hira Kaul and daughter - Ms. Chandra Kaul Muthoo. 2. The petition sought probate of the Will dated 21st July, 1997 of Late Mr. P.N. Kaul. The said Will reads as under: "Whereas my family on the date of bequeathing this Will consists of myself, my wife Smt. Prabha Kaul, my elder son Shri Hira Kaul, my younger son Shri Ravi Mohan Kaul, and my daughter Smt. Chandra Kaul, wife of Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul Mahtoo. And WHEREAS my daughter is married and settled in her family and with the grace of god is living a happy life. Whatever I wanted to do for my daughter I have done and given to her and therefore I do not wish to give anything more. Hence, nothing is given to her. AND WHEREAS I have not made any earlier Will or Testament or codicil which might be put forward to have been made by me by any interested person. Even if that be so, this testament is to be considered as my last Will and Testament in suppersession of all previous Testaments. WHEREAS I am the sole and exclusive Owner of the immovable property bearing C-1/20, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, at present comprising of Ground Floor having three bed rooms, three bath rooms, two small store rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, one small store room, front yard and back yard, Mezzanine floor between first and second floor having a servant quarter, and terrace above the first floor (hereinafter referred to as the "said immovable property") No other person has any right, title or interests, of any nature whatsoever, in the said property. AND WHEREAS, besides the said property, I own other movable properties, in the form of thirty (30) Fixed Deposits, joint and individual, in State Bank of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. AND WHEREAS this is my last and final testament in regard to the all my properties, movable and immovable. NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby bequeath the abovementioned properties, movable and immovable, and the same shall devolve upon and are to be divided amongst my family members as under: My Wife, Smt. Prabha Kaul, shall after my death, get Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakh only) out of all my fixed deposits mentioned hereinabove. After the payment of Rs. 2,00,000.00 to her from the fixed deposits, the remaining amount, whatsoever it may be, shall be divided in equal shares between my two sons Shri Hira Kaul and Shri Ravi Mohan Kaul. My wife Smt. Prabha Kaul shall, after my death, take possession of my immovable property and she shall hold the same throughout her life without any power to alienate, transfer, sell or assign the same. However, she shall be entitle to use and occupy the same as she may feel like throughout her life for her maintenance. After the death of my wife, the ownership of the said property shall absolutely, for all intent and purposes, go to my two sons Shri Hira Kaul and Shri Ravi Mohan Kaul in the following manner : To Shri Ravi Mohan Kaul (i) Ground Floor of the property bearing no. C-1/20, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, comprising of one drawing cum dining room, three bed rooms, three bath rooms, two small store rooms, one kitchen back and front yard/baranda. (ii) One Servant Quarter above the Garage between first floor and ground floor. (iii) half portion at rear side of the total unconstructed second floor. (iv) rear terrace over his rear portion of the second floor equivalent to half of the total surface at third floor ; and (v) front half of the garage at ground floor after