Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava vs Girjesh Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others

2. Heard Sri Yasharth Keshari (Enroll. No.48809 of 2025) holding brief of Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Rai for the respondents.

3. This Court entertained the writ petition on 20.04.2026 while issuing notices upon the respondents, pursuant whereto, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.

4. A statement has been made by Sri Keshari that he does not propose to file any rejoinder and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. The case of the writ petitioner is that Smt. Usha Devi Srivastava, widow of Late Jwala Prasad Srivastava expired on 31.10.2022. As per the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondents, Smt. Usha Devi Srivastava did not execute any will and has left no will. However, Smt. Usha Devi Srivastava has left behind certain estate and the property, which have been detailed in para-8 of the writ petition. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted a succession Case no.849 of 2023 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on prescribed form along with an affidavit before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Prayagraj seeking issuance of succession certificate in respect of the debt and sureties standing in the name of the deceased mother named Late Smt. Usha Devi Srivastava who expired on 31.10.2022. Notice/ Publication was effected in the newspaper on 08.02.2024 and by munadi, however, no rival claimants came forward and the defendant-respondent appeared in the case and filed their objections. After considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Prayagraj allowed the Misc. Case and directed to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioner but imposed a condition that the plaintiff-petitioner shall furnish a surety bond and a personal bond of the said amount on 13.09.2025.

6. Questioning the said part of the order in so far as it pertains to furnish security bond/jamanat, the present petition has been preferred.

7. This Court entertained the present petition on 20.04.2026 while passing the following orders:-

?1. The petitioner is aggrieved by imposition of condition for furnishing undertaking/security/guarantee though succession certificate has been granted in his favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order dated 13.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 8772 of 2025 (Smt. Alka Singhania Vs. Smt. Shilpi Agarwal) and submission has been made that based upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, relief was granted modifying the order impugned.

3. A bare perusal of the order of this Court indicates that other side was represented and though the case of the petitioner appears to be fully covered by the judgment of this Court, presence of the respondents is deemed necessary before this Court through learned counsel.

4. Issue notice to respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.

5. Steps be taken by registered post within three days.

6. Considering the fact that the respondents are family members of the petitioner, permission to serve them by Dasti mode is also granted.

7. Requisite may be supplied by the office to the learned counsel for the petitioner within three days.

8. Put up on 07.05.2026, as fresh.?

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner sought to argue that the condition so imposed in the order dated 13.09.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Prayagraj in Succession Case no.849 of 2023 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that there is no occasion to do so and reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon?ble Delhi High Court in Arvind Nanda vs. State, (2020) SCC Online Delhi 2922.

9. Learned counsel for Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no objection to the same.

10. I have heard the submissions so raised across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

11. A perusal of Section 375 of the Act clearly shows that the imposition of a condition of security/surety/indemnity bond is in order to indemnify person(s) or safeguard the interests of such persons who may be entitled to the whole or any part of the debt and security. A condition is imposed where the Court comes to the conclusion that it is necessary for any purpose, including any debt to be satisfied, any other claimants, any dues to statutory authorities etc. However, the imposition of a condition is to be considered in the facts of each case. A condition cannot be mechanically insisted upon, especially in situations wherein the beneficiary is the sole beneficiary or in other suitable cases, if the beneficiary is a natural heir of the deceased and there are no objections by the other claimants.

12. Hon'ble Delhi High Court after relying upon several judgments held in paragraph No. 10 of Arvind Nanda (supra) judgment 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."

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially that the only other heir of deceased, the respondents have no objection in case the succession certificate is granted to her sister, who is natural heir of deceased and there are no other claimants for the estate of deceased. The imposition of condition of submitting security bond for the equal amount involved, in my view, is not justified.

14. In view of the above legal position, the petitioner, being the sole legal heir and beneficiary of his parent's estate, and there being no objections from any quarter, is exempted from furnishing a surety. The order passed by the court below dated 13.09.2025 is modified to this extent. The court below is directed to issue succession certificate expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from today.

15. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

May 7, 2026

N.S.Rathour