Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from proceedings before the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I for grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioners, two sons of Late Shri Ashwani Kumar Sarin, sought a succession certificate to realise the value of shares held by their deceased father in MRF Limited. The father died on 15 October 2016 and his wife predeceased him on 1 October 2015; the petitioners were the only surviving natural heirs and legal representatives. They filed an application under Section 372 on 17 February 2024. After notice and recording evidence, the District Judge by order dated 24 January 2025 allowed the application and directed issuance of a succession certificate in favour of the petitioners upon payment of court fee, but also imposed a condition requiring the petitioners to furnish a joint written undertaking and a joint security bond worth Rs.2,25,00,000/-. The petitioners contended that the security bond condition was onerous and unwarranted. They moved an application dated 16 March 2026 seeking removal of the condition, but the District Judge dismissed it by order dated 16 March 2026. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the condition of security bond from the order dated 24 January 2025 and set aside the order dated 16 March 2026, alternatively to permit furnishing an indemnity bond. The core legal issue was whether the District Judge acted within the discretionary power under Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 when imposing the security bond condition without recording any reasons. The petitioners argued that Section 375 confers discretion, not a mandatory requirement, and that the condition cannot be imposed mechanically as a routine matter. They relied on decisions of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Estate of Late Raj Pal Sharma & Ors., Arvind Nanda v. State, and Smt. Alka Singhania v. Smt. Shilpi Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent MRF Limited did not contest the proceedings. The High Court examined the factual matrix and noted that no rival claimant had come forward to claim the value of the shares and that the District Judge had already found the petitioners to be the only surviving natural successors. The Court observed that the order dated 24 January 2025 contained no justifications or reasons for imposing the security bond condition and that the subsequent order dated 16 March 2026 also failed to provide acceptable reasons for declining to remove the condition. The Court concurred with the ratio decidendi of the Delhi High Court that Section 375 is discretionary and that at least some reasons must be recorded for imposing such condition. The Court held that the imposition of a security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/- was unwarranted and onerous, especially when no rival claimant existed. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated 16 March 2026 and expunged the condition of furnishing security bond from the order dated 24 January 2025, allowing the petitioners to furnish an indemnity bond in lieu of the security bond.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Grant of Succession Certificate - Conditions and Discretion - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 372, 375 - The District Judge allowed an application under Section 372 granting a succession certificate to the petitioners as sole surviving heirs of their deceased father but imposed a condition to furnish a joint written undertaking and a security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/- without recording any reasons. The High Court held that imposition of security under Section 375 is discretionary and not mandatory, and a mechanical approach without considering the facts is impermissible; when no rival claimant exists and the applicant is the sole successor, requiring a heavy security bond is onerous and unwarranted. The condition of security bond deserved to be expunged and the order dated 16.03.2026 set aside (Paras 6-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge was justified in imposing a condition to furnish a security bond of Rs.2,25,00,000/- under Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 without recording any reasons, and whether such condition should be quashed or substituted by an indemnity bond.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the condition of furnishing a security bond was unwarranted and onerous; allowed the writ petition; set aside the order dated 16.03.2026; expunged the condition of security bond from order dated 24.01.2025; and permitted petitioners to furnish an indemnity bond in lieu of security bond.
Law Points
- Requirement of security under Section 375 Indian Succession Act
- 1925 is discretionary
- not mandatory
- condition of security bond cannot be imposed mechanically as a routine
- court must record reasons for imposing security
- exemption from security may be granted when applicant is sole heir and no rival claimant
- indemnity bond can be accepted in lieu of security bond
- supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India can correct arbitrary exercise of discretion.
