ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL Vs. VVRAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether for the purpose of arriving at the amount of commission payable to the Administrator Genera] in the administration of an interstate estate in cases where the administration commenced before April 1914, the value of the assets is to be taken at the date of their collection or at the date of their distribution.

(2.) By the Act of 1913, the fees, whether by percentage or otherwise, to be charged in respect of the duties of the Administrator-General are those that may be prescribed by the Government provided that in respect of estates the administration of which commenced before the Act, the fees prescribed are not to exceed the fees leviable in respect of such an estate under the Act of 1874, which had been in force down to that date, and which was by that Act repealed. The word "prescribed in that section means "prescribed by rules issued by the Government." So far as Madras is concerned, rules have been issued by Government in 1916. Rule II(1) prescribes that the Administrator General shall be entitled to receive a commission upon the amount or value of the assets which he collects at rates varying according to" the total value of the estate. Sub-section 3(c) of the same rule, referring to the commission payable in such cases, says that such commission shall be payable to and retained by him upon the collection of the assets . The rule goes on after a full stop. In the case of any estate the administration of which has been committed to the Administrator-General before the 1st April 1914 the commission chargeable shall be at the rate of five per centum as prescribed by Section 52 of the Administrator-General's Act, 1874, or at the rate of three per centum in the case of estates falling under Section 53 of that Act. Though, it is very difficult to construe that rule, I think that it means that the new rates prescribed are to prevail in respect of estates newly coming under the administration, but that in respect of old estates, the old law is to prevail. I think that the object of that was to avoid the difficulties which would otherwise arise owing to the provisio in Section 42 of the Act of 1913 which would involve an examination in each case to ascertain whether or not the rate charged exceeded the rate chargeable under the old Act, and in my judgment, the policy was to keep alive for the pre 1914 administrations the old Act of 1874.

(3.) We will therefore have to look at the Act of 1874 ( Section 52) to ascertain how the amount to be charged by the Administrator-General is to be arrived at. In construing Section 52 of the Act of 1874, we must apply all the rules of construction which applied to that section when in force, in order to throw light on the intention of the legislature in enacting particular words in the section under interpretation, and therefore I think, in order to solve the question of the meaning of Section 52, we are entitled, and indeed bound, to look to Secs.53, 54 and 55.