Administration and surety bonds may be dispensed with in uncontested grants of letters of administration.

The petitioner, a beneficiary under the Will dated 26 August 1998 executed by her mother, Late Smt. Bani Sen Gupta, sought Letters of Administration under Sections 278 and 217 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of the deceased’s estate.

The Will bequeathed the Sheikh Sarai flat exclusively to the petitioner, the Jasola flat exclusively to respondent no. 2, and the contents of a Punjab National Bank locker and monies in savings accounts with Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank to respondent no. 2.

Respondent no. 2 had already sold the Jasola flat during the deceased’s lifetime and received its sale proceeds; the remaining assets included the Sheikh Sarai flat, locker contents, and bank deposits.

The banks verified balances of ₹92,126.08 and ₹5,00,748.22 in the relevant accounts.

The Will was proved through the affidavit and testimony of one surviving attesting witness, the other having died.

Respondent no. 2 furnished a No Objection Certificate to the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner and agreed to receive the bank amounts in accordance with the Will.

Whether the Will dated 26 August 1998 was duly executed and attested so as to support the grant of Letters of Administration.

Whether Letters of Administration could be granted in favour of the petitioner in an uncontested testamentary proceeding where the beneficiary entitled to certain assets had consented to the grant.

Whether the requirement of furnishing an administration bond and surety bond could be dispensed with in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the concerned banks should be directed to release the amounts standing to the credit of the deceased’s accounts to respondent no. 2 under the Will.

The Court applied Sections 278 and 217 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, concerning the grant of Letters of Administration; Section 63(c), requiring a Will to be attested by two witnesses; and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which permits proof of a Will through the examination of at least one attesting witness.

Relying on Subhash Nayyar v. Registrar, University of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 250, the Court held that one attesting witness is sufficient to prove due execution and attestation, although suspicious circumstances must be dispelled where the Will’s genuineness is questioned.

Section 291 of the Succession Act, relating to administration bonds, was considered in light of Richa Pardeshi v. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2978, Arvind Nanda v. State, 2020:DHC:1457, Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. Estate of Late Raj Pal Sharma, and Varsha Charan v. State & Ors.; these authorities establish that insistence on an administration or surety bond is discretionary and need not be imposed mechanically, particularly in an uncontested matter where the beneficiaries consent.

The Court found that the surviving attesting witness had identified the signatures of the deceased and his own signatures and had deposed regarding the execution and attestation of the Will.

Since the other attesting witness had died, this evidence sufficiently established compliance with Sections 63(c) and 68.

There was no contest regarding the testamentary disposition: respondent no. 2, who was entitled to the Jasola flat and the bank deposits, had already dealt with the Jasola flat and expressly consented to the grant and to receiving the bank amounts.

The absence of objection and the consistency between the Will and the beneficiaries’ positions established that no legal impediment existed to granting Letters of Administration.

Applying the discretionary principles governing administration and surety bonds, the Court held that requiring the petitioner to furnish such bonds in an uncontested proceeding would serve no useful purpose and dispensed with the requirement.

In view of the uncontested nature of the proceedings, the requirement of furnishing an administration bond and surety bond was dispensed with.

The concerned banks were directed to release ₹92,126.08 and ₹5,00,748.22, respectively, to respondent no. 2, Shri Sanjay Sen Gupta, subject to completion of the banks’ requisite formalities.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.