Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a succession certificate application filed by the two sons of the deceased father who held shares in MRF Limited. The petitioners, being the only surviving natural heirs, sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to claim the value of shares. The District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by order dated 24.01.2025, granted the succession certificate but imposed a condition requiring the petitioners to furnish a joint written undertaking and a joint security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. The District Judge did not record any reasons for imposing the security bond condition. The petitioners filed an application dated 16.03.2026 seeking to remove the security bond condition, which the District Judge dismissed by order dated 16.03.2026, again without assigning acceptable reasons. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the security bond condition and the dismissal order, and alternatively praying to be permitted to furnish an indemnity bond instead of the security bond. The respondent MRF Limited did not contest the proceedings. The High Court examined the scope of Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and held that the power to require a security bond is discretionary, not mandatory, and must be exercised judiciously with reasons. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Estate of Late Raj Pal Sharma & Ors., MANU/DE/0075/2012, and the principles reiterated in Arvind Nanda v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2922, the High Court observed that a mechanical approach of imposing security conditions without considering the existence of debts or rival claimants is not permissible. In the present case, no rival claimant had come forward and the petitioners were the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased. The District Judge had not assigned any justification for the security bond condition in either the original order or the subsequent dismissal order. The High Court found the condition onerous and unwarranted, and held that the exercise of discretion under Section 375 required at least some recorded reasons. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the condition of furnishing a security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/- from the order dated 24.01.2025 and set aside the order dated 16.03.2026, permitting the petitioners to furnish an indemnity bond in lieu of the security bond along with the written undertaking.
Headnote
A) Succession Certificate - Discretionary Security Bond - Section 375 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Furnishing of security is discretionary, not mandatory; court must record reasons before imposing condition; mechanical imposition without justification is arbitrary and unsustainable - Petitioners challenged condition of Rs.2,25,00,000 security bond imposed by District Judge without assigning reasons - Held that under Section 375 discretion must be exercised judiciously with reasons, and condition is unwarranted and onerous (Paras 6-8, 15-16) B) Succession Certificate - Condition of Security Bond - Section 375 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Where no rival claimants or debts are shown and applicants are only legal heirs, security bond condition may be waived or substituted with indemnity bond - District Judge recorded no justification for security bond despite petitioners being only surviving sons of deceased - Held that absence of rival claimants and lack of reasons makes security bond condition unsustainable, and indemnity bond may be accepted (Paras 13-14, 15-16) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Supervisory Power Under Article 227 - Constitution of India - High Court can interfere with District Judge's arbitrary exercise of discretion under Section 375 when no reasons given and condition onerous - Petitioners invoked Article 227 challenging orders dated 24.01.2025 and 16.03.2026 - Held that High Court can set aside arbitrary condition and order as District Judge failed to record justifications (Paras 12, 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of furnishing a security bond imposed by the District Judge under Section 375 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 while granting a succession certificate, without recording reasons, is valid and sustainable; and whether an indemnity bond may be furnished in lieu of security bond.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the condition of furnishing a security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/- from the order dated 24.01.2025, and set aside the order dated 16.03.2026. The petitioners were permitted to furnish an indemnity bond in lieu of the security bond, in addition to the written undertaking.
Law Points
- Section 375 Indian Succession Act
- 1925 is discretionary
- not mandatory
- mechanical imposition of security bond condition without recording reasons is arbitrary
- court must consider existence of debts or rival claimants before requiring security
- in absence of rival claimants and only legal heirs
- security bond condition may be waived
- indemnity bond can substitute security bond.
