In a recent judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Kumar Juneja and Others vs. State), it has been held that there is no requirement of furnishing a security bond in the case of grant of succession certificate to a sole inheritor or an inheritor in whose favour the other Legal Heirs have relinquished their rights. The undermentioned discussion may be noted in this regard.
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.
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 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 mala administer, 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 duty proved Will insofar as requirement of furnishing an administration bond is concerned.
