Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J.
K.G. SUNIL KRISHNAN S/O LATE K.K. GOVINDAN – Petitioner
Versus
K.G. PREMSANKAR S/O LATE GOVINDAN – Respondent
O.P. (C) No. 2832 of 2018
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 278 - Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 56, 25 (a), (d)(i), 55, 59, Article 11 (k), 6 - Indian Succession Rules (Kerala), 1968 - Rule 26 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Court Fee on Application for Probate - Valuation Statement of Properties - Will - What is court fee to be paid on an application for probate/letters of administration - Respondent filed objection, disputing Will, valuation of original petition and court fee paid - Whenever an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is filed, same has to be accompanied by a valuation statement of estate in form set forth in Part I of Schedule III of Court Fees Act.
Findings of the Court:
In an uncontested application falling under Section 56 of Court Fees Act, court fee is to be paid under Article 6 of Schedule I of Act and in a contested application, court fee is to be paid under Article 11 (k) of Schedule II of Act, i.e. one half of scale of fees prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act - Petitioner has to pay court fee under Section 25(a) of Act read with Article 1 Schedule I of Court Fees Act is incorrect and wrong - Undisputedly, neither has petitioner filed valuation statement of properties nor was an enquiry conducted by Collector as stipulated under Court Fees Act - Instead, court below has directed court fee to be paid on disputed valuation statement filed by petitioner without following procedure laid down in Court Fees Act - Therefore, it is only to be held that entire procedure and directions passed by court below are erroneous and wrong - Consequentially, Exts.P3, P6 and P8 orders warrant to be interfered under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.S. DIAS, J.
1. What is the court fee to be paid on an application for probate/letters of administration is the question posed in the original petition.
2. The plaintiff in O.S No. 2/2014 of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur (court below) has assailed Ext P8 order in the original petition. The respondent is the brother of the petitioner and defendant in the suit.
3. The relevant background facts leading to Ext P8 order are:
(ii) The petitioner valued the original petition at Rs. 50,000/- and paid a court fee of Rs. 6,000/- under Sec. 56 read with Article 6 of Schedule I of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 (in short ‘Court Fees Act’).
(iii) The respondent has filed Ext P2 objection, inter-alia, disputing the Will, the valuation of the original petition and the court fee paid.
(iv) In view of the Ext P2 objection, the court below converted the original petition to a suit i.e. O.S. No. 2/2014.
(v) The petitioner filed I.A. No. 4438/2014 (Ext P3), volunteering to pay the requisite court fee on the fair value of the property covered by the Will.
(vi) Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3721/2015 (Ext P4), seeking leave to amend the valuation portion of the plaint. The respondent opposed Ext P4 application by filing Ext P5 objection. The court below, by Ext P6 order, dismissed Ext P4 application.
(vii) Later, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 412/2016 (Ext P7) to amend the relief and valuation portion of the plaint. The court below again, by the impugned Ext P8 order, dismissed Ext P7 application.
(viii) Ext P8 is ex facie illegal, improper and irregular. Hence, the original petition.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the original petition. The respondent has contended that the valuation of the plaint is incorrect. Ext.R1(e) fair value notification substantiates the value of the property. The respondent had filed I.A. No. 4438/2014 to hear the question of valuation as a preliminary issue. By Ext.P3 order, the court below permitted the petitioner to value the plaint, which was not done. Instead, the petitioner filed Ext P4 application to amend the plaint, with the sole intention to protract the payment of the court fee. The respondent has also filed Ext.R1(f) court fee statement. Accepting the respondent’s contention, the court below, by Ext P 6 order, had directed the petitioner to pay the requisite court fee under Section 25 (a) of the Court Fees Act. Exts. P3 and P6 orders have become final and conclusive. It is to indirectly get over the said orders, the petitioner had filed Ext.P7 application, which again was opposed by the respondent. The court below has rightly rejected Ext P7 application by the impugned Ext P8 order. The petitioner is estopped from challenging Ext P8 order without assailing Exts.P3 and P6 orders. The original petition is meritless and may be dismissed.
5. Heard; Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The petitioner had filed LAOP No. 577/2013 to issue letters of administration in respect of the Will executed by the father of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent resisted the original petition through Ext.P2 objection, disputing the Will.
7. This Court has framed Rules under the Indian Succession Act 1925. It is profitable to extract Rule 26 of the Rules, which reads thus:
Section 55 of Court Fees Act mandates that every application for probate or letters of administration is to be accompanied by a valuation of estate in the form set forth in Part-1 of schedule III of ....
The court affirmed the distinction between court fee assessments for testamentary suits versus civil suits, placing valuation authority with the Collector as per specific statutory provisions.
Court fees determination for testamentary matters follows the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and is primarily governed by the procedure involving the Collector, distinguishing it from civil suits and ensu....
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 established that the valuation of an estate in testamentary matters must be determined by the Collector, and the court fees payable are contingent upon this valuation, ensuring compliance w....
Court fee on applications for probate and letters of administration must comply strictly with statutory provisions, and deficiencies must be rectified prior to proceeding with appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
