(1.) This appeal raises a question of some importance under the Court Fees Act. The question has arisen out of the following facts.
(2.) One Rai Praniatha Nath Mitra Bahadur died on April 9, 1933, leaving a Will, dated March, 22 preceding. On August 7, 1933, probate of the Will was granted to Sreemutty Indu Prova Mitra and Shri Manmatha Nath Sen, two of the Executors named in the Will. Manmatha Nath died on June 22, 1945 and Indu Prova on July 27, 1948, without fully administering the estate. On September 1, 1948, an application for Letters of Administration de bonis non with a copy of the Will annexed was made by one Madan Chand Dutt, who is the Appellant before us. He is the sole sxirviving executor of the estate of one Rai Chandra Nath Mitra who was the sole residuary legatee under the Will of Rai Pramatha Nath. A grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Appellant was made on September 9, 1948.
(3.) The property in respect of which probate was granted to Indu Prova and Manmatha Nath was valued by them at Rs. 5,71,970-0-21/2 pies and the proper duty thereon was paid. The property in respect of which Letters of Administration was asked for by the Appellant was valued by him at Rs. 6,33,391-6-9 pies. He, however, claimed that no further duty was payable by him because, as he said in paragraph 6 of his affidavit filed along with the valuation of assets, such of the assets appearing in his list as might appear to be different from the assets on which duty had been paid by the executor and the executrix were really assets of the estate of Rai Pramatha Nath on which duty had already been paid. He explained his meaning more fully in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. There he said that in the course of the administration of the estate, the executor and the executrix, had dealt with or disposed of most of the movable properties such as the cash in hand and Government Promissory Notes and they had again purchased Government securities or securities of other lature out of the income of the estate and had also opened accounts in different Banks with such income, as a result of which the assets of the estate had been increased. In substance, his case was that the apparent difference between the two valuations was not a real difference, but only represented conversions of or accretions to the original assets of the estate on which full duty had already been paid.