Delhi High Court - Orders
Hanu Faujdar vs State & Ors on 22 May, 2026
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 17/2018
HANU FAUJDAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora
and Ms. Rashi Priya, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 22.05.2026 I.A. 7083/2026 (by petitioner under Section 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from filing administration bond and surety bond pursuant to the judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed in the captioned petition with regard to the Will of Late Devi Singh Faujdar.
2. Mr. Vikas Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant submits that the petitioner is the sole beneficiary, as well as, the natural legal heir of the testator i.e. Late Devi Singh Faujdar.
3. He submits that the probate was granted by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 and the same has attained finality, inasmuch as no appeal has been preferred by any of the respondents.
4. Notice was issued in the present application vide order dated 18.03.2026. Subsequently, Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocate, had entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 to 4 and had prayed for time to seek instructions. However, neither any reply to the application has been This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 22:46:09 filed nor there is any representation on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 today.
5. To buttress his contention, Mr. Arora invites attention of the Court to Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [in short, 'Act'] as well as to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Suri vs State and Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 966.
6. I have heard Mr. Vikas Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to advert to the provisions of Section 291 of the Act, which reads thus:
"291. Administration-bond.-(1) Every person to whom any grant of letters of administration, other than a grant under section 241, is committed, shall give a bond to the District Judge with one or more surety or sureties, engaging for the due collection, getting in, and administering the estate of the deceased, which bond shall be in such form as the Judge may, by general or special order, direct.
(2) When the deceased was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person--
(a) the exception made by sub-section (1) in respect of a grant under section 241 shall not operate.
(b) the District Judge may demand a like bond from any person to whom probate is granted."
7. This Court in Sanjay Suri (supra) observed that Section 291 of the Act 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. The relevant extract from the said decision reads thus:
"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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 22:46:09 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."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Likewise, in Arvind Nanda vs. State (2020:DHC:1457) the Court had considered the decision of the Divisional Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. Estate of late Raj Pal Sharma & Ors., [W.P.(C) 9108/2011, decided on 02.01.2012] where it was held that the imposition of a condition for furnishing surety is in the discretion of the Court and the same is not mandatory. Para 10 of Arvind Nanda (supra) reads as under:
"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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 22:46:09 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."
9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/applicant is the sole beneficiary under the Will, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Sanjay Suri (supra).
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner/applicant is exempted from furnishing the administration bond, as well as, surety bond.
11. The learned Joint Registrar may, therefore, proceed accordingly. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 28.05.2026.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MAY 22, 2026/aj This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 22:46:09