1975 Supreme(Del) 190
High Court Of Delhi
ANIL KUMAR MALIK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
PROB.C.P. 2 of 1975
Decided On : 10/23/1975
INDERJIT SARUP
Property held by a deceased person as a trustee for a joint Hindu family is exempt from court fees under Section 19-D of the Court Fees Act.
Headnote:
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 19-D - EXEMPTION FROM COURT FEES - PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST - JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners applied for Letters of Administration without payment of court fees, claiming that the property held by the deceased was held in trust for the joint Hindu family and was exempt under Section 19-D of the Court Fees Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property held by the deceased, if acquired and held for and on behalf of the joint Hindu family, would be held in trust and would be exempt from court fees under Section 19-D.
Issues: Whether the property held by the deceased was held in trust for the joint Hindu family and was exempt from court fees under Section 19-D of the Court Fees Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression "property whereof or whereto the deceased was possessed or entitled either wholly or partially as a trustee" in Section 19-D to cover the case of joint family property held by a coparcener for the joint benefit of himself and others, in which his beneficial interest ceased on his death.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioners an opportunity to lead additional evidence to establish that the assets held by the deceased, at the time of her death, were held for and on behalf of the joint Hindu family and that the parties were governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS father was in the Army. He died on 15. 5. 69 in field area. Thereafter petitioners mother died. They applied for Letters of Administration alleging that investment made by her was from the assets left by their father and she had so done for the benefit of joint Hindu family and since the mother held the property in trust. Court fees was not payable. After narrating above facts, Judgements proceeds :-
( 2 ) A petition for the grant of probate or Letters of Administration is made under Sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. After the petition is made, the question of court-fee immediately springs up. Chapter 3-A of the Court-fees Act, 1870, relates to Probate, Letters of Administration and Certificate of Administration. Section 19-1 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 provides for payment of court-fee in respect of probates and Letters of Administration. Schedule I of Article 11 provides for the rate of Court fees. In pursuance of the provisions of section 19. 1 of the Court-fees Act 1870 the petitioners have filed an affidavit of valuation of the property and credits of the deceased. The petitioners would not be entitled to the grant of the Letters of Administration until the petitioners have filed in Court, a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the IIIrd Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the 1st Schedule has been paid on such valuation. Section 19-D of the Court-Pees Act is.-
( 3 ) IT would thus be seen that the aforesaid provision makes the probate declared valid as to trust property though not covered by court-fee. In other words, it exempts from the payment of Court fee the probate or the Letters of Administration regarding the property which the deceased was possessed or entitled, either wholly or partially as a trustee. This trust property is to be deducted from the valuation and is exempt from the payment of court-fee. The question whether the assets held by the deceased as a karta of the joint Hindu family or even in his own name but for the benefit of the joint Hindu family are included in the exemption provided in section 19-D of the Court-Fees Act was not free from difficulty. The words "the deceased was possessed or entitled, either wholly or partially as a trustee" have been held to cover a case of a joint Hindu family property held by a Karta or a co-parcener for and on behalf of the joint Hindu family and thus impliedly in trust for the Joint Hindu family.
( 4 ) IN Kehavlal Punjalal Sheth v. Collector of Ahmedabad, A. I. R. 1924 Bombay 228 decided by Full Bench, the question arose like this. One Sheth Punjalal Amritlal of Prantij died leaving two sons, Keshavlal and Kodarlal. During his life time they formed a joint family. On his death the joint estate survived to his two sons. The estate Included certain shares in various companies registered under the Indion Companies Act, which were in the name of Punjalal. The sons subsequently effected a partition of the whole estate and as a result divided among other things the beneficial interest in the shares. They applied for limited letters of administration, to the estate of their father relating to the said shares, as without such letters they could not be accepted as his legal representatives in respect of these shares. There was no dispute about the right to the letters of administration but there was a dispute as to their liability to pay the court-fee on the value of the shares. The question was referred to the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in view of the then conflict of the judicial opinion It was held :-
"we have considered the arguments urged on both sides, and my view is that S. 19-D has been correctly interpreted by this Court in The Collector of Kaira v. Chunilal and that even if there be a doubt as to the true meaning of the expression" property whereof or whereto the deceased was possessed or entitled either wholly or partially as a trustee", or the expressi