SURAJ NARAIN GUPTA Vs. SAROSI BALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to me as Taxing Judge under Section 5, Court- fees Act. On 28 February 1943, an application for probate of a will was filed in this Court. Under Rule 4, chap, 11, p. 65 of the High Court Rules the application has to be accompanied by a certificate of the Registrar as to duty having been paid. The duty in accordance with the Court-fees Act as it then stood, Art. 11, Schedule 1, was paid, and the Registrar gave the necessary certificate. On 1st December 1943, before probate had been granted, the Bihar Court-fees (War Surcharge Amendment) Act, 1943, (Act 9 of 1943) came into force, and Section 2 of that Act provided: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended from time to time in its application to Bihar (hereinafter called the principal Act), all lees leviable under the principal Act shall be increased by a tarcharge at the rates specified in the schedule annexed hereto.

(2.) On 22 March, 1944, when this Act was in force, an order was made for the grant of probate, but probate was not actually issued because the office raised the question whether an additional fee was due by reason of the amending Act.

(3.) The question for decision is whether the court-fee payable is to be determined under the old Act, or under the amending Act. That involves the question-when was the fee leviable? What was the crucial date for the payment of the fee ? That in turn depends upon the interpretation of Section 19-I, Court-fees Act, read, of course, with Sec. 4, which provides, inter alia, that no document of any of the kinds specified in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to this Act annexed, as chargeable with fees, shall be furnished by the High Court, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.