MIRA SEN GUPTA Vs. SHAKTIPADA SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the daughter of late Sri Rash Behari Sen Gupta who had executed a Will appointing her to be the executrix. THE petitioner has, therefore, filed this application for grant of probate. A caveat has also been filed by Shri Shaktipada Sen Gupta who is the son of late Rashbehari Sen Gupta and a brother of the petitioner. When the petition was filed a notice was given to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 19-H of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). No objection was raised regarding the valuation of the property given in the application by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or by the Collector under the provisions contained in Section 19-H of the Act. According to the application the petitioner valued the assets at Rs. 49,989/- (vide paragraph 10 of the application) and paid the duty on it. According to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the probate could not be granted unless a clearance certificate from the Controller of Estate Duty was obtained. As would appear from paragraph 9 of the petition, a copy of the petition with the details of valuation given in this Court was filed before the Controller of Estate Duty also for obtaining the necessary clearance certificate. That clearance certificate was granted to the petitioner in July, 1980 which is placed at flag '19'. THE certificate shows that she was not liable to pay any Estate Duty, but at the same time the Controller has assessed the valuation of the properties or assets in question at Rs. 1,09,950/-. On receipt of this certificate the office has placed for consideration if the petitioner would be required to correct the valuation in her petition and pay further fees in the light of the valuation fixed by the Controller. Both parties have been heard on this point.

(2.) THE first objection raised by Mr. C. B. Mitter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that this Court has no right to interfere with the valuation given by the petitioner in absence of any objection from the Collector. He has invited my attention to Rule 4 Chapter XI, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules, according to which every application for probate has to be accompanied by a certificate of the Registrar as to the duty having been paid, or a certificate of the Taxing Officer that no duty is payable. In this case it is submitted that the property was valued at Rs. 49,989/- and duty was paid thereon. So this provision is said to have been fully complied with. He then referred to Section 19-I of the Act which says that no order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate shall be made until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation. THE amount of duty that has been paid is in accordance with item No. 11 of the First Schedule of the Act. THEre is no dispute on this point. Thus, Sub-section (1) of Section 19-I of the Act is also claimed to have complied with. Mr. Mitter has, however, drawn my attention to certain sub-sections of Section 19-H of the Act which entitles the Collector to raise some objections regarding valuation.

(3.) IT is thus clear that the Court has ample powers to re-fix the valuation in a case like the present one and the Court would be perfectly justified in asking the petitioner to amend the valuation and pay additional duty.