KESHAVLAL PUNJALAL SHETH Vs. COLLECTOR OF AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal came on for hearing before my brother Coyajee and myself; but as we were invited to reconsider the decision in The Collector of Kaira V/s. Chunilal (1905) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 161 it was ordered to be heard by this Bench. We have now heard the appeal and the principal point argued is whether the said ruling is to be followed or not.

(2.) The appeal arises in this way: Sheth Punjalal Amritlal of Prantij died on May 15, 1916, leaving two sons, Keshavlal and Kodarlal During his life-time they formed a joint family. On his death the joint estate survived to his two sons. The estate included certain shares in various companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, which were in the name of Punjalal. The sons subsequently effected a partition of the whole estate in 1920, and as a result divided among other things the beneficial interest in the shares. They applied for limited letters of administration to the estate of their father relating to the said shares, as without such letters they could not be accepted as his legal representatives in respect of these shares. There was no dispute about the right to the letters of administration but there was a dispute as to their liability to pay the Court-fees on the value of the shares.

(3.) The petitioners relied upon the decision in The Collector of Kaira V/s. Chunilal as entitling them to exemption from payment under the Court-fees Act. On behalf of the Collector of Ahmedabad it was contended that the ruling did not apply as at the date of the application the property was not joint but divided and severally owned by the two petitioners. The learned Assistant Judge accepted the contention of the Government Pleader and while granting the limited letters of administration as prayed directed Court-fees to be paid on the valuation of the shares as made by the Government Pleader. The petitioners have appealed on the ground that the lower Court has erred in not applying the decision in The Collector of Kaira v. Chunilal, as the material date is the date of Punjalal's death and not the date of application. On behalf of the respondent (the Collector of Ahmedabad), the learned Advocate General has not seriously contested the correctness of the position thus taken up by the petitioners; but he has sought to support the order of the lower Court principally on the ground that Section 19 D of the Court-fees Act has not been correctly interpreted by this Court in the said decision. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the observations in Kashinath Parsharam v. Gouravabai (1914) I.L.R. 39 Bom. 245 and the words of Section 19D and Schedule III of the Court-fees Act.