In a significant order dated 12 May 2026, the High Court of Delhi, in TEST.CAS. 99/2008, Shri Rajinder Motwani v. State and Others, allowed the Petitioner’s application seeking exemption from furnishing sureties for issuance of the probate certificate, after noting that the probate proceedings had already attained finality, the estate had been duly administered, the beneficiaries had expressed satisfaction, and the statutory court fee had been deposited.
The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Divyakant Lahoti and Ms. Shreya Gokel, Advocates, along with the Petitioner appearing in person. The matter was heard and decided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan.
Background of the Dispute
The proceedings arose from a probate petition filed by Shri Rajinder Motwani, seeking probate of the last Will and Testament dated 29 August 1997 of his late father, Shri Pritam Dass. The Petitioner was also the named executor under the Will.
By judgment dated 31 January 2014, the High Court had granted probate in favour of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner depositing the requisite court fee and furnishing the administration bond for due administration of the estate of the deceased. The probate proceedings had been contested by only one respondent, namely Respondent No. 6, Shri Virumal Motwani. His objections were rejected while granting probate in favour of the Petitioner.
The said objector carried the matter in appeal by filing FAO (OS) 182/2014 titled Virumal Motwani v. State and Others, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by order dated 1 October 2014. Thereafter, the challenge was further carried before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) 236/2015 titled Virumal Motwani v. State through Secretary and Others, which was also dismissed by order dated 13 February 2015. Consequently, the order granting probate attained finality in the year 2015.
The Issue Before the Court
After the probate had attained finality, the Registry of the High Court, by letter dated 12 March 2026, required the Petitioner to furnish two sureties. The Petitioner accordingly moved I.A. 13084/2026 under Section 151 CPC, seeking, inter alia:
1. Taking on record the e-court fee of Rs. 5,69,981/- deposited by the Petitioner;
2. Issuance of the probate certificate in favour of the Petitioner; and
3. Appropriate orders discharging the Petitioner/executor from further liability, including exemption from furnishing two sureties.
The central issue before the Court was whether, in the facts of the case, the Petitioner could be exempted from furnishing sureties despite the Registry’s requirement.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Divyakant Lahoti submitted that the probate had already been granted as early as 31 January 2014, and the judgment had attained finality in 2015, after dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench and dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court.
It was further submitted that the Petitioner had already administered the estate of the deceased and that the same had been distributed amongst all the beneficiaries. Under the Will, there were only four beneficiaries, namely the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who were the real sisters of the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had also filed affidavits dated 5 May 2026, stating on oath that they were satisfied with the due compliance of their father’s last Will and were discharging the executor from all liabilities.
It was therefore urged that, in the peculiar facts of the case, insisting upon sureties would serve no substantive purpose, particularly when:
Statutory Context: Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
The Court considered Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which empowers the District Judge to require a person to whom letters of administration are granted to furnish a bond with one or more sureties.
The High Court noted that the object of an administration bond, with or without sureties, is to secure the interest of beneficiaries under the Will and to ensure due and proper administration of the estate belonging to the testator. In other words, surety is not an end in itself; it is a protective mechanism intended to safeguard the estate and the beneficiaries.
Where those very beneficiaries have confirmed satisfaction regarding due compliance of the Will, and where the estate has already been administered, the insistence on sureties has to be tested against the purpose for which such sureties are required.
Reliance on Arvind Nanda v. State
The High Court relied upon Arvind Nanda v. State, 2020:DHC:1457, wherein the Court had considered the decision of the Division Bench in Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Others v. Estate of Late Rai Pal Sharma and Others, W.P.(C) 9108/2011, decided on 2 January 2012.
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the imposition of a condition for furnishing surety is discretionary and not mandatory. The principles noticed by the Court included the following:
1. The condition of furnishing indemnity or surety is within the discretion of the Court.
2. Such a condition may be imposed where the Court finds it necessary, including where there are debts, claims, or other circumstances requiring protection.
3. In every case, a mechanical insistence on furnishing surety or security is not required.
4. Where exemption from furnishing surety is sought, the Court must examine the entire factual conspectus.
5. The requirement of surety is not mandatory in every case.
This reasoning became central to the Court’s decision in favour of the Petitioner.
Findings of the High Court
After hearing the Petitioner, the High Court held that the probate petition had attained finality in 2015. The Court further noted that the beneficiaries under the Will, excluding the Petitioner, were Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who were the real sisters of the Petitioner, and that they had given affidavits confirming satisfaction with the due compliance of their father’s last Will. They had also discharged the executor from all liabilities.
The Court also recorded that the administration bond had already been furnished by the Petitioner and that the court fee of Rs. 5,69,981/-, as demanded by the Registry, had already been filed.
Having regard to these facts, and applying the law laid down in Arvind Nanda v. State (supra), the Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to be exempted from furnishing surety bonds.
Accordingly, the application was allowed, and the Registry was directed to issue the probate certificate to the Petitioner, provided all other requirements under law stood satisfied
Why the Order Is Important
This order is significant because it reinforces a practical and purposive approach in probate proceedings. It clarifies that the requirement of furnishing sureties is not to be applied mechanically, particularly in cases where the estate has already been administered and the beneficiaries have acknowledged satisfaction.
The decision also recognises that probate proceedings often involve family estates where, after prolonged litigation, insistence on further procedural requirements may cause avoidable delay despite finality of adjudication. The Court’s approach ensures that procedural safeguards remain meaningful without becoming oppressive or redundant.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Furnishing of surety is discretionary
The order reiterates that the Court has discretion in deciding whether sureties are required. The requirement is not automatic or mandatory in every probate or succession matter.
2. Purpose of surety must guide its imposition
Surety is intended to protect the estate and beneficiaries. Where the beneficiaries themselves confirm due administration and discharge the executor, the Court may consider exemption.
3. Mechanical insistence on sureties is not required
The High Court reaffirmed that courts must consider the facts of each case rather than insist upon sureties as a routine administrative condition.
4. Finality of probate proceedings is relevant
Where the grant of probate has survived appellate and Supreme Court scrutiny, and no further challenge remains pending, that finality becomes an important factor in considering exemption from additional conditions.
5. Beneficiary consent and satisfaction carry weight
Affidavits by beneficiaries confirming satisfaction with the administration of the estate can be a relevant and persuasive factor while seeking exemption from surety requirements.
Conclusion
The order dated 12 May 2026 in Shri Rajinder Motwani v. State and Others is a notable reaffirmation that probate procedure must be applied in a manner consistent with the object of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court recognised that where the estate has been administered, beneficiaries have acknowledged due compliance, the administration bond has been furnished, and the requisite court fee has been paid, insistence on sureties may not be necessary.
Lahoti Advocates, through Mr. Divyakant Lahoti and Ms. Shreya Gokel, successfully represented the Petitioner and secured an order exempting him from furnishing surety bonds, thereby enabling issuance of the probate certificate in accordance with law.