IRA Kapoor vs The State and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The order impugned is the order dated 4.4.2011 vide which the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 151 of the CPC 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 Others, 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.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (87) DRJ Sudershan K. Chopra v. 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.

Proceedings are uncontested. Although strictly speaking there is not one sole beneficiary to the will of the deceased, yet all the legal heirs of the deceased have no objection and have not contested the will of their deceased father.

The object of a testamentary and intestate jurisdiction is to enable the court to accord legitimacy and authenticity by giving its seal of approval to succession of the estate of the deceased. The court while exercising such a jurisdiction acts in consonance with the ultimate objective of the grant of succession. The statutory provisions and rules are to be interpreted in the manner which would give effect to and further the intention of the deceased rather than to act in the manner which would have a converse effect on what was contemplated by the deceased. The well recognized proposition of interpretation demands that a statute must be construed as to make it operative to give it a sensible meaning; the possibility of injustice often leads the court to adopt a particular construction; it must not flout common sense and at the same time there must not be any disregard of the statute by overriding it. It is in this background that the prayer made in this petition is to be considered.

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.