IRA KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned is the order dated 4.4.2011 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a waiver of the condition regarding the furnishing of a surety and administration bond had been dismissed. Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act read with the ratio of the judgment reported in Sanjay Suri Vs. State and Ors. AIR 2004 Delhi 9 had been relied upon to return a finding that only when a sole beneficiary is involved can there be a dispensation of the indemnity and surety bond and not otherwise. THE court had noted that the petitioner in this case is not the sole beneficiary as such the indemnity and surety bond cannot be waived.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (87) DRJ Sudershan K. Chopra Vs. State and Ors. to support his submission that in an uncontested proceeding (which was so in the present case), the condition of the security bond for the grant of probate had been modified and a token amount had been directed to be deposited; in that case surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been directed to be deposited. Record shows that in the instant case the letters of administration had been granted in respect of the estate of the deceased Manohar Lal Chopra i.e. the property E- 490, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi. The will had been proved as Ex.PW-1/2. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the father of the petitioner and of the two respondents; both the said respondents had filed a no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. In fact all of them were beneficiaries of the will of their deceased father. Vide the aforenoted will dated 1.5.2006 the ground floor with all the fittings and fixtures had gone to the share of petitioner; first floor was bequeathed to respondent no.3 and the second floor to respondent no.2; further respondents no.2 and 3 as also the petitioner has equal rights and shares in the basement.

(3.) IN the judgment of this Court in Sudershan K. Chopra (supra) the court had directed the petitioner to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. IN the instant case proceedings admittedly being uncontested and in view of the ratio of judgment of Sudershan K. Chopra (supra), it would be appropriate that a security bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be furnished by the petitioner; this would serve the purpose. Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms.