The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the imposition of a condition to furnish a security bond for the grant of a succession certificate is not a mechanical requirement. Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held that such a condition is at the discretion of the court and may be waived in cases where the applicant is the sole beneficiary or where other natural heirs have expressed no objection.
Background
The matter arose from an order dated January 18, 2025, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar, in a succession case. One Smt. Shakuntala Devi died intestate on October 30, 2008, leaving behind two daughters, Smt. Alka Singhania (the petitioner) and Smt. Shilpi Agarwal (the respondent), as her only legal heirs. The deceased held shares in Reliance Industries Limited.
The petitioner, Smt. Alka Singhania, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (ISA) for a succession certificate. Despite public notice, no objections were received. The only other heir, Smt. Shilpi Agarwal, filed a consent affidavit stating she had no objection to the certificate being granted to the petitioner. While the trial court allowed the application, it directed the petitioner to furnish both a personal bond and a security bond equal to the amount of the succession certificate.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Mishra, argued that the condition to submit a security bond of an equal amount was arbitrary. He emphasized that there were no other claimants or heirs, and the sole respondent had already given her consent. He relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Arvind Nanda Vs. State (2020) to support the plea for exemption.
The respondent’s counsel, Sri Rama Shanker Yadav, filed a short counter-affidavit reiterating that the respondent had no objection to the grant of the succession certificate to her sister.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, noting that the purpose of a security/surety/indemnity bond is 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.”
The court observed that the imposition of such a condition depends on the specific facts of each case and “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.”
Referencing the principles laid down in Arvind Nanda Vs. State, the court noted:
“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.”
The court further noted that the imposition of such a condition is discretionary and not mandatory, as held by the Division Bench in Rajesh Kumar Sharma.
Decision
The court found that since the petitioner is a natural heir and the only other heir had no objection, the requirement for a security bond for the equal amount was not justified.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held:
“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 High Court modified the trial court’s order to the extent of the security bond and directed the lower court to issue the succession certificate within eight weeks.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Alka Singhania v. Smt. Shilpi Agarwal
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 8772 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
- Date: March 13, 2026
