STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHANTABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application raises a question as regards the quantum of Court fees payable on a succession certificate in respect of shares in a Limited Company which stood in the name of the deceased as the Karta of a Hindu co-parcenary and which would therefore devolve by the rule of survivorship on the remaining co-parceners on the death of the Karta subject of course to the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act 1956 The opposite party applied for the certificate in question as the widow of the deceased Acharatlal Ashram alleging that the shares were held by the deceased as the Manager of the Hindu undivided family and that the deceased had only 1/5th share as co-parcener in those shares. The deceased died on 15-8-1969 leaving behind him his widow that is the petitioner (opposite party before this Court) three sons and four daughters. The petitioner contended that the deceased had 1 share only. The petition for succession certificate was given in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and the question of quantum of Court fees was raised by the Registrar of that Court. On raising of that question notice was issued to the learned Government Pleader to make his submissions on the question because the State would naturally be interested in the revenue to be collected in the shape of Court-fees. The matter was argued on behalf of the petitioner-widow and on behalf of the State before the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. On hearing them the learned Judge came to the conclusion that even in case of a succession certificate the Court fees payable would be on the 1/5th share of the deceased in the shares in question and not on the entire value of the shares. Being aggrieved by this decision the State has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) The matter has been argued in the trial Court on the basis that the shares in question belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of the deceased husband of the petitioner the petitioner and their three sons. In the application for revision also this basis which was adopted by the learned trial Judge for the purpose of determining the question of Court fees was not challenged on any specific ground. In this Court the matter therefore has been argued and is to be decided on the basis that it is not in dispute that the shares in question belonged to the joint Hindu-family consisting of the husband of the petitioner the petitioner and their three sons.

(3.) So far as the Letters of Administration in respect of the shares or other securities or debts belonging to the joint family which are held in the name of its Karta as a trustee or manager are concerned the view held by the Bombay High Court and which has been settled since long is that the value of the shares so held by the deceased as Karta of the joint family property is exempt from payment of Court-fees on the principle that on the death of the Karta the whole of the beneficial interest in the joint family property passes by survivorship to the remaining members of the joint family. Therefore what remains is only the legal title to the shares of the deceased and the necessity for letters of administration would arise on account of this legal title remaining in the deceased. This question however has not been decided with reference to a succession certificate. However the principle laid down by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Keshavlal Punjalal Sheth v. The Collector of Ahmedabad (25 Bombay L R. 1240) has been considered by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in arriving at his conclusion on this question. Alongwith that principle he has also considered the phraseology of the relevant Articles of the Central Court-Fees Act 1870 as amended by Bombay Act 11 of 1932 and the Bombay Court-Fees Act 1953 as well as sec. 19D of the former Act and sec. 24 of the latter. The learned Judge was of the view that 1/5th share in the shares in question would devolve under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 not only upon the widow and her three sons but also on the four daughters. Therefore having treated this 1/5th share as the property in which the deceased had separate beneficial interest and which upon the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would devolve upon his widow her sons and daughters the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Court-fees payable in this case would be on this 1/5th share because the remaining 4/5th share would go to the other co-parceners by the rule of survivorship. The decision of the learned Judge that the Court fees are payable on 1/5th share of the deceased in this case has not been challenged on behalf of the petitioner-widow by appropriate proceedings. Therefore we will not go into the question of correctness or otherwise of that part of the decision. The challenge is brought by the State only submitting that Court fees are to be paid on the entire value of the shares mentioned in the petition for succession certificate. Therefore the only question which arises is whether Court fees are payable in the present case on the succession certificate on the entire value of the shares as mentioned in the petition for succession certificate or as held by the learned trial Judge only on the 1/5th share of the deceased.