IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Valmiki Sa Menezes, J.
Prakashchandra Deokaranji Bhoot and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Manoharlal Deokaranji Bhoot and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8387 of 2018
Decided On : 12-06-2023
Court Fees - Indian Succession Act - Section 372, Section 379(1)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in a matter related to the issuance of a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioner sought the dismissal of the respondents' petition for non-payment of the requisite fee under Section 379(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deposit of the sum to be expended on the fee referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 379 is not mandatory, and non-deposit of the same along with the filing of the application for the issuance of a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Act does not affect the maintainability of the application or the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed to deciding the application.
Issues: The issues involved were whether an application for a certificate of Succession filed under Section 372 is maintainable when the fee prescribed under Section 379(1) of the Act has not been paid along with the presentation of the application, and whether the Civil Court dealing with the application filed under Section 372 of the Act for the issuance of a certificate of Succession would lack jurisdiction to proceed to hear the application for want of deposit of the fee referred to under Sub-section (1) of Section 379 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 372 and Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which led to the finding that the deposit of the sum under Section 379(1) is not mandatory and does not affect the maintainability of the application or the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugnes order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in RMJC No.597/2015 on application at Exh.37 of the record of the trial Court: Exh.37 is an application filed at the behest of the petitioner seeking the dismissal of a petition filed by respondents under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short ‘the Act’), for non-payment of the requisite fee under Section 379(1) of the said Act.
3. The question that is called for decision in this petition is :
(b) Whether the Civil Court dealing with the application filed under Section 372 of the Act, for issuance of a certificate of Succession would lack jurisdiction to proceed to here the application, for want of deposit of the fee referred to under Sub-section (1) of Section 379 of the Act.”
(4) The facts relating to the filing of this petition are as under:
In the application for issuance of the Succession Certificate, at paragraph 10 thereof the applicant has specifically undertaken to pay the requisite stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act on the date of the decision of the application.
5. The non-applicants/petitioners herein opposed the maintainability of the application by filing an application at Exh.37 of the record of the trial Court for dismissing the petition purportedly for the non-payment of the court-fees, on the contention that the court-fees as payable under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, had not been paid along with the application for the certificate, in terms of Sub- Section (1) of Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was their contention that for non-payment of this fee, the application was not maintainable and the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the succession proceedings.
The trial Court has dismissed this objection holding that payment of court-fees under Section 379(1) was not a sine quo non for the maintainability of an application under Section 372 nor does it affect the Courts jurisdiction to proceed with deciding the succession application.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 379(1) of the Act, requires that every application for a certificate of Succession shall be accompanied by court-fee to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. He has emphasized that the word used in Section 379(1) is “accompanied by” and as such, the intention set out in these provisions was that an application for a certificate should not be entertained without the requisite court-fees being collected before proceeding with the matter.
It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reading of the provision of Sub-Section (2) of Section 379 of the Act, specifies that such sum deposited is required to be spent in the purchase of stamp to be used at the time the Succession Certificate is issued, and for that reason, the fees are required to be accompanied along with the application in order to
The deposit of the sum under Section 379(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the issuance of a Succession Certificate under Section 372 is not mandatory and does not affect the maintainability....
A token court fee of Rs.25/- is sufficient at the time of applying for letters of administration, with full fees due only after granting the letters, adhering to Section 276 of the Indian Succession ....
The Court cannot direct the deposit of charges for succession certificate for the entire claim/security when the petitioner is claiming only a portion of the security.
Succession Certificate – Courts are required to deal with application under Section 372 of Succession Act in a summary manner without asking for strict proof as contemplated under Indian Evidence Act....
Compromise awards in succession cases must adhere to procedural requirements, including proper notice and investigation, to prevent fraudulent outcomes.
The District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under this part. The succession certificate can be asked for immovable prop....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.