The main legal point established in the judgment is the curability of the defect of insufficiency of court fees by making further payment at a subsequent stage, emphasizing the importance of timely payment of court fees and the consequences of delayed payment.

1. The plaintiffs are mother and son. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 and the sister-in-law of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs have sued for administration of the estate of the deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 as also the deceased father-in-law of plaintiff No.1. The father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 is stated to have expired on 12.04.2003. The husband of plaintiff No.1 is stated to have expired on 23.04.2003, a mere 11 days after the death of his father.

2. The suit property is one residential flat. The suit flat admittedly belonged to the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs claim 1/3rd share each in the estate of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and 1/3rd of 1/3rd share of the husband of plaintiff No.1 in the estate of the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs claim that when the father-in-law expired on 12.04.2003, his wife (defendant No.1), his daughter (defendant No.2) and the husband of plaintiff No.1 were the only heirs. The husband of plaintiff No.1 would obtain 1/3rd of his estate (and accordingly 1/3rd of the suit flat) of his father. He expired 11 days thereafter. The plaintiffs claim that that 1/3rd share would devolve upon plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 in equal shares.

3. The plaintiffs have valued the suit flat at Rs.75 lacs. The plaintiffs have valued the share of the husband of plaintiff No.1 at Rs.25 lacs. The plaintiffs have valued their 1/3rd share each in the share of the husband of plaintiff No.1 in the suit flat at Rs.8.33 lacs + 8.33 lacs = 16.66 lacs.

4. The plaintiffs claim compensation for wrongful use of the suit flat by defendant No.1 to the exclusion of the plaintiffs from the date of the death of the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 i.e. 12.04.2003 till the filing of the suit i.e. for the period of 71 months aggregating to Rs.8.52 lacs @ Rs.12,000/- per month and have valued the claim of plaintiff No.2 at Rs.4.26 lacs. The plaintiffs were required to pay Court fees upon the valuation of the suit property of Rs.16.66 lacs + Rs.4.26 lacs.

5. The plaintiffs have instead paid Court fees upon the claim of plaintiff No.2 upon valuing it at Rs.8.33 lacs + Rs.4.26 lacs = Rs.12.59 lacs. The plaintiffs have paid Court fees of Rs.28845/- upon such valuation. The plaintiffs have not paid any Court fees upon the valuation of the suit property for the share claimed by plaintiff No.1 on the ground that her claim has arisen out of the matrimonial relationship and is accordingly exempted from the payment of Court fees.

6. The objection was raised by the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court with regard to the payment of Court fees. The claim of exemption was not allowed. The plaint came to be rejected on 01.07.2009 under Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 for non removal of the office objection which was for non payment of requisite Court fees.

7. The plaintiffs claimed exemption under the notification of the State Government exempting women from payment of Court fees dated 01.10.1994. That notification came to be amended in the year 2000. Suits such as the above suit were not exempted under the later notification. Only applications by women for maintenance were exempted. Hence plaintiff No.1 was not exempted from payment of Court fees. The objection was rightly raised. The objection has not yet been removed. The suit has been rightly rejected by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under Rule 986 aforesaid.

8. The plaintiffs accept that the suit was rightly rejected and have applied for setting aside the rejection upon offer of payment of Court fees towards the 1/3rd share of plaintiff No.1 valued at Rs.8.33 lacs.

9. The plaintiffs' claim is from 12.04.2003, which is the date of the death of the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1. From that date the husband of plaintiff No.1 would have been entitled to his 1/3rd share in the estate of his father. He expired on 23.04.2003. The plaintiffs could sue on a