LAKSHMI PRASAD Vs. BADRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this case relates to the court-fee payable in respect of a will dt. 20-11-1963 alleged to be the last will and testament of one Babu Lal bequeathing to Lakshmi Prasad, the petitioner in this case, his eight annas interest in a house bearing Holding No. 10 of the Gaya Municipality. Admittedly, Babu Lal died and thereafter Lakshmi Prasad, the sole legatee under the will, filed an application before the District Judge, Gaya, for letters of administration with the copy of the will annexed. That application was numbered as Letters of Administration Case No. 8 of 1965 and as it was contested, it was subsequently numbered as Title Suit No. 3 of 1967 and transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge I, Gaya. In that proceeding, the value of the property was fixed at Rs. 2385 -and the petitioner had paid the requisite court-fee on that valuation. Title Suit No. 3 of 1967 was, however, dismissed for default on 24-6-1968. An application for restoring that title suit, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 1968 was dismissed on 12-12-1968.

(2.) The petitioner Lakshmi Prasad filed a fresh application for letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed in the Court of the District Judge. Gaya, which application was registered as Letters of Administration Case No. 21 of 1968 and was subsequently converted, on contest, into Title Suit No. 6 of 1969/4 of 1973. In this application, the petitioner referred to the earlier letters of administration case and the fact that he had already paid the court-fee after fixation of the value of the property. The applicant filed an affidavit of valuation and it was directed to be sent to the Collector, Gaya, for his valuation report. By that time, the case had been transferred to the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gaya, and ultimately it was transferred to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gaya. By his letter dt. 24-9-1975, the Civil Suit Deputy Collector, Gaya, intimated to the Court that the valuation of the property set forth in the valuation affidavit had been enquired into by the Circle Inspector, Manpur, who had reported that the present market value of the house was Rs. 25.000/-. Thereafter, the Seristedar of the Court reported that the court-fee payable on the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- was Rs. 1202-50. On 27-11-1975, along with the stamp report of the Seristedar, the matter was placed before the Court. It appears that the petitioner applied for time and the Court by its order of that date directed the petitioner to deposit the court-fee reported by the seristedar by 13-12-1975. On 13-12-1975 and 3-1-1976, the petitioner filed further petitions for time. On 15-1-1976, the next date fixed for payment of the court-fee, the petitioner filed an application to call for the records of Title Suit No. 3 of 1967 and for passing of necessary orders after perusing the same, and those records were called for. Awaiting the records, 3-4-1976 was fixed for hearing on the question of valuation. On 3-4-1976 also, the records were not received, and on that date while reiterating the prayer for calling for the records of Title Suit No. 3 of 1967, by his petition the petitioner stated that the valuation fixed was exorbitant and asserted that the valuation had already been fixed in the earlier case and the court-fee, according to the valuation, had already been paid. The Court again directed that the records be called for. The records were received and thereafter on 11-11-1976, the arguments were heard on the court-fee matter, and by his order dt. 15-11-1976, the learned Additional District Judge overruled the contention of the plaintiff-petitioner that as he had already paid the court-fee, he was not to pay any further court-fee on the present valuation of Rs. 25,000/-, and observing that the plaintiff petitioner did not challenge the correctness of the valuation report submitted by the Collector held that the petitioner had to pay the court-fee on the present valuation of the estate of the deceased and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the court-fee (wrongly called the stamp duty by the learned Additional District Judge) of Rs. 1202.50 on the value of the property reported by the Collector. It is against that order of the learned Additional District Judge that the present application is directed.

(3.) Section 19H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter called "the Act") requires the Court, other than a High Court, before whom an application for probate or letters of administration is made to give notice of the application to the Collector, and if the Collector is of the opinion, and even after inquiry he continues to be of the opinion, that the petitioner has under-estimated the value of the property of the deceased, he may require the petitioner to amend the value. And if the petitioner does not amend the value to the satisfaction of the Collector, the Collector may move the Court before which the application for probate or letters of administration was made to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property. Sub-s. (5) of S.19H requires the Court, when so moved, to hold, or cause to be held, an inquiry and to record a finding as to the true value at which the property of the deceased should have been estimated. In the present case, the petitioner has valued the assets which were likely to come to the hands of the petitioner from the estate of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner had not amended the valuation of the property in accordance with the opinion of the Collector. On the valuation which was reported to the Court by the Civil Suit Deputy Collector, the value of the property of the deceased was Rs. 25,000/-. It appears that the Civil Suit Deputy Collector had reported the valuation at the instance of the Collector and the Court had three options. (i) it could seek a clarification from the Collector as to whether the Collector was making an application to the Court under sub-sec.(4) of S.19H to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property, (ii) ignore the report as no application for inquiry under sub-sec.(4) had been made and demand court-fee on the basis of the valuation of the property as given in the application for letters of administration, and (iii) treat the report as an application under sub-sec.(4) of S.19H and proceed to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property. The Court below has obviously not ignored the valuation reported by the Collector and has proceeded to act upon it. Before acting upon it, however, it was its duty under sub-section (5) to hold an inquiry into the value of the property of the deceased. It could not proceed to assess the court-fee on the basis of the valuation of the Collector without making an inquiry. There has therefore, been a substantial departure from the procedure prescribed under sub-sec.(5) of S.19H of the Act. It must therefore, be held that the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in calling upon the petitioner to pay court-fee on the valuation reported by the Collector, even assuming that the learned Additional District Judge was right in his view that the court-fee already paid on the previous application for letters of administration could not be taken into account.