Purnima Sonti vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010942672025
+ TEST.CAS. 107/2025
PURNIMA SONTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Das, Ms. Jyoti Dahiya,
Ms. Aatrayi Das, Ms. Sakshi Mand,
Ms. Jyoti Jha and Mr. Aditya Rana,
Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. B. K. Singh, Adv. for R-3 and 4.
Mr. B.K. Singh and Mr. Kapil, Advs.
for Canara Bank (through v/c).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA


SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)


1. The present petition has been filed under Section 278 read with
Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( “the Act” ), seeking grant of
Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of Late Smt. Bani Sen
Gupta ( “the deceased/testatrix” ), on the basis of her Will dated 26.08.1998
( “the Will” ). The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries under the said Will
and has accordingly sought appropriate directions in respect of the assets
forming part of the estate of the deceased.
2. The deceased/testatrix was the mother of the petitioner and
respondent no. 2. The Will records the manner in which the assets of the
deceased are to devolve upon the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The
relevant assets forming part of the estate have been set out in Schedule A to
the petition, which records as under:
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 1 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

3. For disposal of the present petition, certain essential facts may be
noticed.
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 2 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

4. The deceased/testatrix executed the aforesaid Will during her lifetime,
which provides for two immovable properties, i.e., DDA MIG Flat No. 17-C
on Second Floor at Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi ( “Sheikh Sarai Flat” ) and Flat
No. 196-B, First Floor, Pocket- 2, Group III, Jasola, New Delhi ( “Jasola
Flat” ). In terms of the Will, the Sheikh Sarai Flat shall exclusively devolve
upon the petitioner, whereas the Jasola flat shall exclusively devolve upon
the respondent no.2. Further, the Will provides for the movable properties
(i.e. contents of locker of Punjab National Bank; monies lying in the Savings
Bank Accounts in Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank) to exclusively devolve
upon the respondent no.2.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the lifetime of the deceased,
the respondent no.2 had already dealt with/sold the Jasola Flat, which was
intended for his benefit, and had received the sale proceeds thereof. The
remaining assets which are required to be dealt with under the Will are the
Sheikh Sarai Flat bequeathed to the petitioner, along with the contents of the
locker and amounts lying in the two bank accounts which, under the Will,
are to devolve upon the respondent no.2.
6. Insofar as the aforesaid two savings bank accounts are concerned, the
amounts lying therein have been verified by the concerned banks. Affidavits
have been placed on record from the respective bankers, disclosing amounts
of Rs. 92,126.08/- and Rs. 5,00,748.22/- lying in the said accounts. The said
amounts are to be dealt with in terms of the testamentary disposition
contained in the Will.
7. It is, in these circumstances that the petitioner seeks grant of Letters
of Administration, inter alia , so that the necessary formalities in respect of
the estate may be completed and the amounts lying in the aforesaid bank
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 3 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

accounts may be released to the respondent no.2, in terms of the Will.
8. The execution and attestation of the Will has been supported by the
affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses, who has deposed in support of the
due execution of the Will. In the said affidavit, the witness has identified the
signatures of the deceased/testator as well as his own signatures on the Will
and has deposed regarding the manner in which the Will was executed and
attested. The other attesting witness has since expired. In these
circumstances, the testimony of the surviving attesting witness is sufficient
to establish the due execution and attestation of the Will.
9. In Subhash Nayyar v. Registrar, University of Delhi , 2013 SCC
OnLine Del 250, a Division Bench of this Court, inter alia , observed as
under:
“ 12. The settled position of law is that a Will is mandatorily required to
be attested by two witnesses in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925. The requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence
Act has also to be complied with for proof of the Will. Section 68 of the
Evidence Act lays down the mode of proof; it envisages that it is not
necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove the due
execution of the Will. When the genuineness of a Will is in question
apart from the execution and attestation of the Will, it is also the duty of
the propounder of the Will to dispel all suspicious circumstances.”
10. The respondent no. 2, who is also a beneficiary under the Will has
given his No Objection Certificate to the grant of Letters of Administration
in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Sheikh Sarai Flat. There is,
therefore, no contest between the beneficiaries with regard to the manner in
which the estate is to be dealt with in terms of the Will. The said No
Objection Certificate reads as under:
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 4 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon
grant of Letters of Administration, the petitioner shall ensure due
compliance with all necessary formalities and shall facilitate release of the
amounts lying in the aforesaid two bank accounts to the respondent no. 2, in
accordance with the terms of the Will. It is submitted that the petitioner shall
also file an affidavit of compliance in this regard.
12. The respondent no.2, who is present in person, submits that he has no
objection to the same.
13. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the
deceased/testatrix executed the Will in question and that the same has been
duly proved through the evidence of the attesting witness. The testamentary
disposition contained in the Will is also consistent with the position taken by
the beneficiaries before this Court. In particular, the respondent no.2, in
whose favour the amounts lying in the two bank accounts have been
bequeathed, has not raised any objection.
14. In the aforesaid conspectus, this Court is satisfied that there is no legal
impediment to grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 5 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

Late Smt. Bani Sen Gupta in terms of the Will dated 26.08.1998.
15. Accordingly, Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated
26.08.1998 executed by Late Smt. Bani Sen Gupta are granted in favour of
the petitioner, subject to payment of the requisite court fee.
16. Vide Order dated 25.03.2026, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Varsha Charan v. State & Ors ., it was observed as under:
“3. Likewise, in Arvind Nanda vs. State (2020:DHC:1457) the Court had
considered the decision of ld. 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 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.”

4. In the present case, the petitioner seeks a Letter of Administration to
the estate of her deceased husband in the absence of a Will. This Court
notes that there is no reason why the exposition of law in the aforesaid
cases, which dispenses with the requirement of furnishing an
administration bond in the case of a sole beneficiary under a Will, ought
not to be extended to an uncontested case seeking Letter of
Administration in case of intestate succession. The object of the law of
succession, whether testamentary or intestate, is to enable the Court to
accord its seal of approval to the succession of the estate of the deceased.
In this regard reference may had to the decision of a coordinate bench of
this Court in Richa Pardeshi vs. State , 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2978,
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 6 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

wherein it was observed as under:
“13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, and I think
rightly so, that there is no reason why the enunciation of the law
relating to aforesaid case dispensing with furnishing of
administration/surety bond in the case of a sole beneficiary under
a Will should not be made applicable to the case of a sole
beneficiary upon whom the estate of the deceased devolves by
intestate succession. The object of the law of Succession, be it
testamentary or intestate in nature, is to enable the Court, to lend
its seal of approval to the succession of the estate of the deceased.
It is trite that the judgment given in the exercise of both
testamentary and intestate succession is a judgment “in rem”.
14. Indubitably, a greater degree of care is required in the case of
intestate succession while appointing an administrator to take
care of the estate of the deceased, but in all other respects the
exercise of testamentary and intestate succession is predicated on
the duty cast upon the Court to ensure that the estate of the
deceased devolves in a proper manner upon the heirs of the
deceased and is not frittered away. It is with this intentment that
Section 291 of the Act requires furnishing of an administration
bond both in the case of intestate succession and testamentary
succession. As a matter of fact, the opening words of said Section
are significant, which state “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.”
15. In view of the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that to hold that
Section 291 envisages the furnishing of an administration bond by
a sole beneficiary or a sole legatee would lead to absurd
consequences, for, the said sole beneficiary/sole legatee would
then he standing surety for the estate of the deceased, which has
exclusively devolved upon him, and it would be paradoxical to
hold that a person can stand surety for himself.
(emphasis supplied)

5. Having regard to the fact that the petition remained uncontested and
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also given their no objection, this Court is
of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed in view of the
law exposited in the decisions of this Court noted hereinabove. Ordered
accordingly.
17. Therefore, since the petition remains uncontested by the respondent
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 7 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06

no.2, the requirement of furnishing an administrative bond and surety bond
is dispensed with.
18. The concerned banks i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4, are directed to
release the amounts lying in the respective bank accounts forming part of the
estate of the deceased, being Rs. 92,126.08/- and Rs. 5,00,748.22/-,
respectively, to Shri Sanjay Sen Gupta/ respondent no.2 (who is a
beneficiary under the Will and entitled to receive the said amount/s in terms
thereof), subject to completion of the banks’ requisite formalities.

19. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/ ka
TEST.CAS 107/2025 Page 8 of 8


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:21.09.2026
18:56:06