The Bombay High Court has allowed an application seeking dispensation of the requirement for a surety to justify the administration bond, after finding that all the legal heirs of the deceased had consented to the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner.
Justice Abhay Ahuja passed the order on September 3, 2026, in Interim Application (L) No. 11375 of 2026 in Testamentary Petition No. 3334 of 2025. The order is also listed on the Bombay High Court’s official recent judgments page.
Background of the Case
The application was filed by Hemlata Dattaram Chalke in connection with the estate of Sushilkumar Kesrinath Sawe, who was unmarried and had no surviving immediate legal heirs. His parents had also predeceased him, and he had no brothers or sisters.
The petitioner and three other heirs were described as agnates, meaning relatives connected through the paternal line. All three other heirs had filed consent affidavits and raised no objection to the Letters of Administration being granted to the petitioner. They had also agreed that no justification of surety should be required for their respective shares.
Court’s Observation
The Court considered the requirements under Rules 420 and 422 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Ordinarily, a person receiving a grant is required to furnish an administration bond with a surety.
However, Rule 422(c) permits the Court, in an appropriate case and for reasons recorded in writing, to dispense with justification of the surety.
The Court noted that the entire estate would be divided among the petitioner and the three consenting heirs. Since all three had expressly consented to the grant without requiring surety justification, the Court found that there was no remaining share for which a surety would need to justify the estate.
"Since there is consent to the administration of the entire estate and for the grant of the Letters of Administration to the Petitioner, nothing would remain to be justified by surety."
Decision
The Bombay High Court accordingly dispensed with the requirement for justification by the surety. It directed the Registry to accept the administration bond from the petitioner without such justification.
The Court further directed the department to proceed with the testamentary petition according to law and allowed and disposed of the interim application.
