GANGARAM TILLOCKCHAND Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to the amount of duty payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, Art. 11 of Schedule I, as amended by Bombay Act III of 1926, which came into force on April 1, 1926. Stated shortly, the Court fee in question may be described as probate duty.

(2.) The point at issue between the parties is whether the amount of the duty ought to be calculated at the rate in force under the law as it stood at the date of the petition for probate, or whether it should be calculated at the higher rate of duty which came into operation before any grant of probate was made.

(3.) The petitioner is the executor of the will of the deceased Shamdas Hiranand who died on December 3, 1923, and he has paid the sum of Rs. 28,439 for duty at or prior to his petition being presented and filed on February 24, 1926. If, however, the amending Act of 1926 applies, then additional duty to the extent of about Rs. 18,861 is payable. A difference having arisen between the Testamentary Registrar and the attorneys for the petitioner as to the payment of this extra amount, the question was eventually referred under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act to Mr. Justice Crump by the directions of myself as Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Crump decided that the amount of duty ought to be calculated in accordance with the amending Act, and that therefore the petitioner ought to pay the additional sum of Rs. 18,861. From this decision, the petitioner now appeals. .