TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % # CNR No.DLHC010341582026 Date of Decision : 17.08.2026 + MS. SHACHI J. AGARWAL .....Petitioner TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Through: Mr. Amit Punj, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nikita Bhutani, Panel Counsel, R-1 (through v/c) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“the Act”) before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (“Trial Court”), seeking grant of probate/ letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 19.09.2002, executed by Late Sh. Bishamber Lal Aggarwal (“the deceased/testator”), in respect of his estate. The said Will has been placed on record along with the present petition. 2. The aforesaid Will dated 19.09.2002 was executed by the deceased / testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, Sh. Mahesh Kumar and Sh. Anurag Jain. The Will is stated to have been executed by the testator in his sound mind and without any coercion or undue influence. The Will further records revocation of all previous wills, if any, executed by the deceased. Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48 Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 2 of 6 3. For disposal of the present petition, the following essential facts are taken note of. Late Sh. Bishamber Lal Aggarwal was last residing at C-12, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi, and expired on 21.11.2012. He was survived by his wife, Smt. Satya Kumari, and his daughter, Ms. Vibha Mahajan. The petitioner is the executor named in the aforesaid Will. 4. Under the Will dated 19.09.2002, the deceased/ testator bequeathed his property bearing Flat No. 27, Type B, Block No. 3, First Floor, along with Parking Space No. 0, situated in Sector-56, Gurugram, Haryana, allotted to him by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation (“CGEWHO”) vide Allotment Letter No. GGB0459 dated 08.12.1995, in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is not only the beneficiary under the aforesaid Will but has also been named as the executor thereof. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court seeking probate/ letters of administration in respect of the said Will. 6. The Will dated 19.09.2002 is stated to have been duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar-IX, New Delhi, vide Registration No. 5214, Book No. 3, Volume No. 147, pages 58 to 59, on 19.09.2002. One of the attesting witnesses, namely Sh. Anurag Jain, has also verified the petition in terms of Section 281 of the Act and has specifically affirmed that he was present when the testator affixed his signature on the Will and that he himself signed the Will as an attesting witness in the presence of the testator and the other attesting witness, Sh. Mahesh Kumar. 7. The petitioner has further placed on record the communication dated 27.05.2022 issued by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation, whereby the petitioner was informed that, for Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48 Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 3 of 6 transfer/mutation of the membership/ownership of the aforesaid flat in her favour, she was required to obtain probate/letters of administration in respect of the said Will. The petitioner has accordingly instituted the present petition. 8. The present petition was initially instituted before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. In terms of the order dated 27.08.2022, passed by the Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, it was directed that the citation be published in the English newspaper ‘The Statesman’, and Hindi newspaper “Veer Arjun”. 9. Subsequent thereto, the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the said Court records that the said publications have been made. The petitioner submits that no objections thereof have been received in response to the said citation. 10. The property forming the subject matter of the present proceedings is the aforesaid residential flat bearing No. 27, Type B, Block No. 3, First Floor, along with parking space, situated in Sector-56, Gurugram. The valuation report placed on record assesses the value of the property at Rs.73,38,100/- on the basis of the applicable collector rate for the year 2023- 24. 11. Accordingly, since the valuation report of the estate exceeds Rs. 10,000/, vide order dated 06.07.2026 passed by this Court in TR.P. (C) 105/2025, the matter was transferred from the Court of the leamed Additional District Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to this Court, in terms of section 273 (b) of the Act, on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction. 12. It is further noticed that Smt. Satya Kumari (the wife of the deceased) and Ms. Vibha Mahajan (the daughter of the deceased) have not entered Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48 Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 4 of 6 appearance in the present matter, either in the Trial Court or before this Court. 13. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires the Will to be proved by examination of at least one of the two witnesses. PW2/Anurag Jain is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, who had deposed that he witnessed the said Will being duly signed by Sh. Bishamber Lal Aggarwal, which was then duly registered. The said evidence affidavit has been placed on record as Exhibit PW-2/A. 14. From the aforesaid material, it is evident that the deceased executed the Will dated 19.09.2002, which is a registered testamentary instrument. The Will identifies the petitioner as its beneficiary in respect of the property forming the subject matter of the present proceedings and also names her as the executor. The execution of the Will is further supported by the verification of one of its attesting witnesses under Section 281 of the Act. 15. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, and the evidence and proceedings before the Trial Court, this Court is satisfied that the Will dated 19.09.2002 was duly executed by Late Sh. Bishamber Lal Aggarwal in accordance with law and that there is no legal impediment to grant of probate thereof in terms of Section 272 of the Act and Rule 6 of Chapter XXIX of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. 16. Insofar as the requirement of furnishing an administration bond or surety is concerned, the same is required to be considered in light of the position contained in the order 05.08.2024 passed by this Court in TEST.CAS. 48/2017, wherein the sole beneficiary under the will was the deceased’s nephew and not a natural legal heir, however, he was exempted Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48 Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 5 of 6 from furnishing any administration or surety bond. The said order, inter alia, reads as under: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the Will dated 27.10.2013 of late Sh. Man Mohan Kohli, in view of the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Suri v. State & Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 966, the requirement of the petitioner to furnish an Administrative Bond and one Surety be waived. ***. *** *** 7. In Sanjay Suri (supra), on a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, especially on Section 291 thereof, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under: “28. Considering the nature of the Testamentary and Intestate succession, the object and purpose sought to be achieved by Section 291 and thus applying the aforesaid principles of interpretation of statutes, it would be seen that Section 291 of the Act is not intended to cover within its ambit the cases of a sole beneficiary and legal heir under a Will being required to furnish administration/surety bond. One cannot administer the estate or his own estate against himself, for which he be required to give an indemnity or administration bond. Besides, none of the purposes and objectives of Section 291 of the Act are covered or fulfilled by the execution of an administration/surety bond by the sole inheritor or beneficiary under the Will duly proved. Such an exercise would be an exercise in futility. In the instant case if the petitioner's grand son was to mismanage or maladminister, he would be, doing so only against his own and personal interests. A right that clearly vests in him by virtue of the bequest. Hence insistence of furnishing the administration bond in the present case would not only be meaningless and without any purpose, but inconsistent with succession. Section 291 in the light of the foregoing principles of interpretation, as noticed, has to be interpreted so as not being applicable to a case of a sole beneficiary and legal heir, under a duly proved Will insofar as requirement of furnishing an administration bond is concerned .” 8. In view of the above Judgment and keeping in mind that the petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the Will dated 27.10.2013, the requirement of the petitioner to furnish the Administrative Bond with one Surety to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar General of this Court, shall stand Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48 Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 38/2026 Page 6 of 6 waived . The requirement of the petitioner to deposit the Court Fee shall, however, stand. 17. Considering that, in the present case, there is a sole beneficiary in the Will and further considering that there is no contest from other legal heirs to grant of probate in favour of petitioner, the petitioner shall be exempted from furnishing any administration or surety bond thereof. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Subject to the petitioner filing the requisite court fees, probate stands granted in favour of the petitioner. SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 17, 2026/ka By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 20:11:48