Honble SHARMA, J.–The meaningful question that falls for consideration in the instant revision petition is as to what should be the court fee in a contentious case for grant of probate or letter of administration.

(2).This question arises in the circumstances set out below:

(3).The non-petitioner plaintiff(in short the plaintiff) made an application for grant of letter of administration in the court of learned District Judge Jaipur City on the basis of alleged will and present petitioner-defendants (in short the defendants) were arrayed as opposite party. The defendants objected to the grant of letter of administration. The learned District Judge after being satisfied that the case was contentious directed to register the application as regular suit. The report in respect of valuation of the property was called from the Collector and according to him the valuation of the property was Rs. 33.50 lacs. The plaintiff disputed the valuation described by the District Collector and the learned District Judge directed the plain- tiff to furnish valuation of his own. The plaintiff was further directed by the order dated December 17,as regards the excess valuation by the District Collector by furnishing his own valuation or in the alternative to pay the court fee within a period not exceeding 25 days.

(4). The plaintiff was further directed by the learned District Judge Jaipur City vide order dated Feb. 6, 1993 to file the amended plaint duly showing the valuation of the properties and to pay the court fee on the valuation within ten days as required under Order 7 of the CPS. The plaintiff did not comply with the above directions. There after vide the impugned order dated July 8, 1998 the learned District Judge exonerated the plaintiff from payment of court fee on his application for grant of letter of administration holding further that the plaintiff would be liable to pay the court fee on the letter of administration as and when ordered to be granted in his favour. Against this order that the defendants have preferred the instant revision petition.

(5).As the question of payment of court fee has arisen in the instant case, no- tices were issued to the learned Advocate General.

(6).Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants canvassed that on the regular suit being registered the plaintiff was liable to pay one half the scale of fee prescribed under Article 1 of Schedule (1) of the Raj. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (in short the Act of 1961) on the market value of the pro- perty as envisaged in Article 11 (J) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961. But the court below has failed to appreciate that the court fee payable under Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961 on the application for letter of administration is payable advalorem in case the application for grant of letter of administration is contentious and is registered as a suit, whereas the court fee payable under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act of 1961 is on the letter of administration when ordered to be granted in favour of the plaintiff and that both the articles aforesaid, one in Schedule II and other in Schedule I, deal with two different situations quite exclusive of each other. Learned counsel for the defendants made an attempt to distinguish the case reported in Vasudeo vs. Lal Singh and others (1) and placed reliance on Smt. Shanti Bai vs. Kishan Gopal (2).

(7). Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General also gave his useful assistance and placed reliance on Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. Kishan Gopal(Supra).

(8). I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before me and carefully scanned the legal position.

(9). Before proceeding further, it may be useful to refer some relevant provisions. Section 50 of the Act of 1961 mandates thus-

``Sec. 50. Application for probate or letters of administration. (1) Every application for the grant of probate or letter of administration shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document