RAJESH SINHA AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 2255/2015 (by the petitioners for exemption from furnishing the surety)

(2.) The petitioners, who are siblings, had filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), praying inter alia that letters of administration be granted in respect of the estate of their father, late Shri Tarini Prasad Sinha. The said petition was uncontested and after the petitioners filed their evidence, the same was allowed. Vide order dated 18.09.2013, letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased were granted in favour of the petitioner No.1, subject to payment of the requisite court fee, valuation of the Gurgaon property and upon his furnishing an Administration Bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar General.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners states that after the aforesaid order was passed, the valuation of the Gurgaon property owned by the deceased was received from the office of the District Collector, Gurgaon and his entire estate has been collectively valued at Rs. 6,37,60,383/-. Based on the aforesaid valuation, the petitioner No.1 has deposited the court fee stamps worth Rs. 25,50,427.32 paise in the Registry and he has also filed an Administration Bond under Section 291 of the Act on 3.4.2014. The present application has been filed by the petitioners praying that petitioner No.1 be exempted from furnishing a surety for the estate of the deceased on the plea that a surety is required to be furnished to safeguard the ultimate interest of the heirs and in the instant case, all the three petitioners are the legal heirs and the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased in respect whereof, letters of administration have been granted and further, no objection has been given by the petitioners No.2 and 3 for grant of the letters of administration in favour of the petitioner No.1, who has been authorized to administer the estate of the deceased. In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a surety bond for a nominal amount may be permitted to be filed by the petitioner No.1.