Loading...

Smt. Sudershan K. Chopra vs State And Ors. on 8 February, 2006

Delhi High Court
Smt. Sudershan K. Chopra vs State And Ors. on 8 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 127 (2006) DLT 468
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed


JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This is an application filed by the sole legatee in respect of a will dated 23.04.1992 left by Late Brigadier (Dr) K.C. Chopra. In this application, the petitioner has prayed that she may be exempted from filing the Security Bond or, in the alternative, the Security Bond may be ordered to be furnished for a nominal sum.

2. The probate proceedings culminated in the order of this court dated 30.09.2005 whereby probate was granted in favor of the petitioner in respect of the said will of her husband, Late Brigadier (Dr) K.C. Chopra. Under the said will dated 23.04.1992, the petitioner is the sole legatee and all the movable and immovable properties of the testator have been left to the petitioner. The probate proceedings were not contested and consequently the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2005 was passed by this court.

3. The petitioner has already filed the court fee stamps of Rs. 1,20,920/- and is hereby seeking exemption from filing the Security Bond or, in the alternative, to furnish a Security Bond for a nominal sum on the ground that, she being the sole legatee in respect of the said will and there being no contest to the same, the condition of filing a Security Bond in respect of the entire value of the legacy would be onerous on her. The petitioner being the widow of the testator and being the sole legatee has, therefore, requested for exemption. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Manmohini Dassi v. Taramoni: where the court had permitted the executor, who was the sole legatee, to furnish a Security Bond for a nominal sum. In that case, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that in cases where the executor is the sole legatee, if the District Judge thinks it necessary to take any bond, the security fixed must be a nominal sum. In the present case, while granting probate by order dated 30.09.2005, this court did not specifically require the petitioner to furnish a Security Bond. However, it did direct that the formalities necessary for issuance of the probate of the will be completed and these formalities normally include the formality of furnishing a Security Bond and court fee. The court fee amount has already been paid. It is only with regard to the Security Bond that the application has been made.

4. In this view of the matter, I feel that the decision of the Calcutta High Court is apposite and I direct that a Security Bond for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh would serve the purpose without burdening the petitioner / sole legatee. This matter stands disposed of.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information