TRAMBAKLAL DAYALAL KOTHARI Vs. L K DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule, which was obtained with a corresponding interim order On 21st June, 1974, the petitioner, Trambaklal Dayalal Kothari, has impeached certain orders made by the Probate Deputy Collector, being Respondent No, 1, and the particulars whereof would be available from the facts stated hereinafter.

(2.) One Umedlal Dayalal Kothari also known as Umedlal D. Kothari died at premises No. 18, Priya Nath Mullick Road, Bhowanipur at Calcutta on 19th June, 1963 and the petitioner in this Rule applied for probate of the last Will and testament of the said deceased in this Court and it has been stated that such probate was granted by this Court in its Original Side. Such probate order was made on 13th Aug. 1964. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time of making the application for the grant of probate as mentioned above, on or about 9th Sept. 1973, the petitioner, who incidentally was a brother of the deceased along with one Himatlal Umedlal Kothari, the son of the deceased, affirmed and filed the Affidavit of Assets showing the value of the estate as left at Rs. 2,57,097.25 paise. The said valuation has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. It has further been stated that the probate Duty of Rs. 11,299/- was paid to the Court, at the time of grant of Probate, on due calculation, and the High Court had accepted the valuations as made, to be correct.

(3.) Thereafter, the Respondent Probate Deputy Collector, issued letters informing that enquiries into the matter of payment of Probate Duty, would be initiated and as such, the said officer wanted to see the original Probate Estate Duty Assessment papers and balance sheet, apart from other records. It is the case of the petitioner that the original Probate and audited balance sheet for the relevant periods, were shown and on or about 17th July, 1973, it was informed that the estate duty assessment had not been completed and as such, the same should not be filed. It has been alleged now, that in spite of the aforesaid facts, the officer concerned ex parte assessed the valuation of the estate, in terms of the notice dated 16th Feb. 1973 and increased the valuation of the estate by Rs. 240,980/- (provisional) and asked the petitioner to amend the valuation and also to pay Rs. 14,735.15 paise. It has of course been stated that the above notice was cancelled and a fresh notice dated 15th Jan. 1974, was issued, whereby the petitioner was asked to amend the valuation by raising the sum of Rs. 2,40,980/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,735.15 paise, on account of additional stamp duty in terms of Section 19-H (3) of the Court-fees Act, as amended and also to deposit Rs. 2,473.50 paise by way of penalty under Section 19G of the said Act.