The valuation given by the petitioner for the purpose of probate is final unless objected to by the Collector under Section 19-H of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The requirement of an administration bond is discretionary and may be waived in certain circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge disposing of an application under S. 276 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) for grant of a probate.

( 2 ) ONE Mrs. Mira Bhojwani died at Delhi on 11-5-1979. She had executed a Will dated 8-3-1978 by which she had appointed her only two children (sons) Ashok Bhojwani and Subhas Bhojwani as the executors of her Will. Amongst the properties bequeathed by her was one bunglow at 7, Nizamuddin East, which she bequeathed in equal shares to her daughters-in-law, Kusum, also known as Sonu, wife of her son Ashok and Mira, wife of her other son Subhash. She also bequeathed certain other plot and cash to her sons and grand-children. Notice was issued to the husband of the deceased. No objection was raised and the learned Judge has directed the issue of probate with Will annexed in favour of the appellants. He however, directed that they must furnish an Administration Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar. The learned Judge noticed that the appellant had placed the valuation of the estate at the amount of Rs. 2,72,707. 00 and had paid court-fee on that. The learned Judge, however, took the view that three items namely

(F) valuation charges for valuation of property and jewellery Rs; 695. 00 (g) Court-fee payable on probate Rs. 11,000. 00 (h) Expenses of obtaining probate and administering the estate. Rs. 5,0001- included in the Sch. B to the affidavit filed by the appellant were wrongly sought to be excluded from the valuation of the estate. He, therefore, held that the appellant should pay court-fee on a valuation of Rs. 2,89,402. 00 instead of Rs. 2,72,707. 00 given by the appellant. He, therefore, directed that the court-fee should be paid by the appellant on this increased value as worked out by the Judge. The appellants are aggrieved against both these directions and have come up in appeal.

( 3 ) SECTION 19 (1) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (to be called the Act) provides that no order entitling the petitioner to grant of probate shall be made until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set out in the Third Sch. and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned at No. 11 of the First Sch. has been paid on such valuation. As required by Sch. in appellant filed an affidavit and along with it gave valuation of the assets in the form required by Annex. a to Third Sch. Annexure B to the Third Sch. permits a schedule of debts and other deductions to be mentioned; the valuation of the assets in Annex. a is arrived at by deducting the amounts shown in Annex. b not subject to duty. The learned Judge has taken the view that entries in f, g and h mentioned above could not fall within the ambit of Annex. b as they cannot be said to be an amount of debts due and owing from the deceased payable by law out of the estate and therefore, the total of these items should be added to the valuation given and requiring the appellant to pay additional court-fee.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge in holding that expenses mentioned in items f, g and h are not amounts of debts due and owing from the deceased relied upon (1970) 78 ITR 199 In re, Mrs. Constance Lubeck; a single Judge judgment of Madras High Court which had held that the estate duty cannot be included as an item to be deducted from the value of as estate in ascertaining the market value for the purpose of calculation of the Court-fee chargeable for grant of probate. Mr. Bhagat, the learned counsel for the appellant, has brought to oar notice a Division Bench judgment of the Mysore High Court, reported in (1964) 53 ITR (ED) 64 Mrs. Blanche Nathalia Pinto v. State of Mysore, which has taken a contrary view and has held that the estate duty so paid or payable should be deducted from the estimate of the market value of the property so and what remains after such deduction is the amount on which