JUDGMENT :- The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-11-2000 made in W.P. No. 22130 of 1993, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding no merit in the claim of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner, his father O.S. Subramanya Iyer, left behind a Will dated 10-5-1979, under which he bequeathed the property bearing Door No. 4, IV Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Adyar, Chennai in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, he died on 17-3-1987 and the Will dated 10-5-1979 being his last Will and testament, the petitioner took out O.P. No. 260 of 1989 for Probate of the said Will. By order dated 22-11-1989, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of the property and credits of O.R. Subramanya Iyer were granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. The Probate itself was issued on 8-2-1990. According to him, he filed an inventory of the said property and credits besides rendering a true account of the estate of the deceased showing the assets that had come into his hands. While the application for grant of Probate was presented in this Court, the customary method of calling for the report of the first respondent District Collector, for the valuation of the property was done. However, the first respondent issued a notice under Section 59(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, (in short "TNCF and SV Act") signed on 24-2-1992 and served on the petitioner on 27-2-1992, calling upon him to appear before the first respondent on 16-3-1992 for enquiry about the undervaluation of the property and for payment of additional court-fee. The value was fixed at Rs. 4,50,000/-per ground; and for three grounds and 1257 sq. ft. the land value was arrived at Rs. 15,85,687.50 and building was valued at Rs. 1,04,953.85 and the total value was arrived at Rs. 16,33,861.35. For this notice, the petitioner submitted his objection on 16-3-1992. In the objection, the petitioner pointed out that the inventory required under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act had already been made, and the six months period had expired and therefore the valuation of the property would not arise even under the proviso to Section 59(5). In the objection, the petitioner categorically stated that he did not accept the valuation indicated in the notice under Section 59(1) of the TNCF and SV Act and pointed out that even if any under valuation was to be found, the Collector could not move the Court at this juncture for holding an enquiry into the true value of the property by reason of Proviso to Section 59(5). The objection of the petitioner was overlooked and the first respondent passed an order to the effect that the Collector can proceed under Section 61(4) of the TNCF and SV Act. The petitioner again made a representation to the first respondent, however, ultimately, the second respondent directed payment of Rs. 49,105/-. The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition for quashing the said proceedings.

4. Th first respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the Assistant Registrar (Original Side), High Court, Madras in his letter dated 28-6-1989, forwarded copies of application for Probate and affidavit of assets filed by the writ petitioner in O. P. No. 260 of 1989 for valuation of estate and a report as to the correctness of valuation was called for from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, in whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The net value of the property was arrived after examining the valuation report of the Tahsildar at Rs. 16,90,641.35. A provisional notice under Section 59(1) of the TNCF and SV Act was issued on 14-2-1992 to the writ petitioner. The petitioner was also heard in person. His objections were considered and rejected. The petitioner was informed to amend the valuat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document