TEST.CAS. 48/2005 Page 1/4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 02nd November, 2020 + TEST. CAS. 48/2005, I.A.8272/2020 SURINDER PAL KAUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jabar Sigh & Mr. A.K. Panda, Advs. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) I.A. 8272/2020 1. By this order, I shall decide the aforesaid application, which has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “In view of the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to: - (a) Pass the Administration Bond dated 18.4.2017 be discharged and the Properties of sureties Rakesh Chand Maheshwari being No.-28 Malviya Road Dehradun (Now 45/1 Malviya Road Laxman Chowk, Dehradun 6/7th share) and Arpit Maheshwari be discharged and necessary endorsement be made on the original sale deeds. a) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” TEST.CAS. 48/2005 Page 2/4 2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the application is that the petitioner had filed a Testamentary Case for grant of probate in terms of the Will dated June 07, 2003 executed by Baba Chakravarty Darvesh. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the case, which resulted in the petitioner filing an Intra-Court appeal before the Division Bench being FAO(OS) 275/2013. 3. The Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and declared that the petitioner is entitled to probate as claimed by her, subject to the petitioner completing the formalities for grant of probate such as, furnishing undertaking, security etc. for proper administration of the probate. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has furnished an administration bond with two sureties. The relevant part of the administration bond reads as under:- “XXXX XXXX XXXX WHEREAS by an order of the Court of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat an Hon’ble Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma, made on 10.09.2016 in Test Cas. 48 of 2005 (FAO(OS) 275/2013), titled Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur V/s State of Delhi, the above named Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh Dhillon R/o 147, Shivalik Enclave, Landran Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab at present h.No. 2717B, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab, PRESENTLY AT NEW DELHI has been appointed administrator of the estate of Late Baba Chakravarti Darvesh (deceased), subject to his furnishing security by execution of a bond of Rs.71,27,957/- (Rupees seventy one Lacs twenty seven thousand nine hundred fifty seven only), with two sureties AND WHEREAS THE said Shri Manveer Singh S/o Sardar Gurdev Singh H.No. 2717B, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab and Arpit Maheshwar S/o Rakesh Chand Maheshwari R/o House No. 1, Tahabrapura Ganga Bhavan Mirapur Muzaffarnagar, U.P have agreed to stand sureties for the said Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh Dhillon R/o 147, TEST.CAS. 48/2005 Page 3/4 Shivalik Enclave, Landran Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab at present H.No. 2717B, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab, PRESENTLY AT NEW DELHI and was approved by the court subject to his entering into the above written bond as sureties for the said Mrs. Surinder Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh Dhillon R/o 147, Shivalik Enclave, Landran Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab at present H.No. 2717B, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab, PRESENTLY AT NEW DELHI: NOW THE CONDITION of this bond or obligation is such that, if the said Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh Dhillon R/o 147, Shivalik Enclave, Landran Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab at present H.No. 2717B, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab, PRESENTLY AT NEW DELHI, do and shall, within six months from the grant to him of letters of administration of the estate of LATE BABA CHAKRAVARTI DARVESH, the deceased, or such further time as the said court may allow, do make or cause to be made a full and true inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property, assets and credits of the estate which have or shall come in his hands, possession or to his knowledge in course of administration and also all the debts and outstanding due and payable by the estate and exhibit the same in the said court and do and shall, within one year from the said grant or such further time as the said court may allow, exhibit an account of the estate of the said deceased, showing the assets which have come to his hands and the manner in which they have been applied, appropriated or disposed of, and do and shall well and truly administer the property, assets and credits of the deceased according to law, and all and every the rest and residue of the said property, credits and estate, which shall be cound remaining and shall assent to and deliver and pay to such person or persons as shall be lawfully entitled thereto, THEN and in such an event the above written bond or obligation shall be void and of no effect, otherwise the same shall remain in full force and virtue.” 4. It is the case of the petitioner, so contended by Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a beneficiary under the Will, is not required to furnish an TEST.CAS. 48/2005 Page 4/4 administration bond and also the sureties. He, in support of his submissions has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Sanjay Suri vs. State AIR (2004) Delhi 09; (ii) Ved Prakash Wadera vs. The State & Ors., Test. Cas.92/2008 decided on August 22, 2013; (iii) Ishwari Devi Grover & Ors. vs. State, Test.Cas. 83/2013 decided on October 06, 2016; (iv) Sanjeev Kumar Juneja& Ors. vs. State, Test. Cas. 56/2015 decided on October 06, 2016. 5. That apart, it is his submission that the petitioner got the physical possession of the estate of testator being Property No. E-255, GK-II, New Delhi and has constructed a single-story hall therein, as such the administration bond stands void / revoked. 6. The propositions on which the judgments have been relied upon are not disputed but the fact remains, the administration bond and sureties having been given by the petitioner / sureties and on a perusal of the application, it is only averred by the petitioner that she has constructed a single-story hall therein, the administration bond stands void / revoked, suffice to state, the application does not in unequivocal terms states, what the petitioner has stated in the administration bond. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view, on the basis of this application, the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The application is dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 02, 2020/ak