Succession duty paid by applicant unnecessarily.

ORDER : -This is a novel application for refund of court-fee of Rs.600.

2. The facts are: The petitioner applied for a succession certificate to collect certain debts due to her deceased husband including a sum of Rs.20,000 due on a draft by Messrs Prudential Co-operative Central and Urban Bank Ltd., Madras, and paid succession duty for all items including this item. On the necessary formalities prescribed having been complied with, this petition was posted for hearing and on no objection forthcoming, succession certificate was granted as prayed for. This was on 19-10-1946. It is stated that five years thereafter, a succession certificate in regard to this item was applied for in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Secunderabad Division, on an objection raised by the Prudential Co-operative Central and Urban Bank Ltd., Secunderabad, that the succession certificate issued by the Madras High Court will not be operative in Secunderabad being outside the jurisdiction of the Indian Union Court and therefore the succession certificate should be applied for in the Hyderabad State.

On this, an application was made to the District and Sessions Court, Secunderabad division, and a succession certificate was granted by that Court on 13-3-1951. The petitioner has thereupon filed the present application in the High Court stating that the sum of Rs.600 paid on this item in the Madras High Court for obtaining the succession certificate was paid due to a bona fide mistake and error and prays for a refund of the same.

3. There is no decision of this Court bearing on this point apart from the decision cited before me in regard to the indisputable proposition that this Court in fit cases can order refund under S.151, Civil P.C. See for instance- Thammayya Naidu v. Venkataramanamma, AIR 1932 Mad 438 (A), wherein it was held that even in cases not covered by Ss.13, 14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act, this Court can under S.151, Civil P.C., order refund of court fee paid in excess. The catena of decisions of this Court collected by Messrs. Krishnamurthi and R. Mathurbhutham in their very useful publication "Guide to the law of Court-fees in Madras" 3rd Edn. at page 144 (para.3) have no application to the facts of this case and the only decision in point which has been cited before, me is- Ahmeda Ebrahim v. Bombay Government, AIR 1943 Bom 50 (B). I am unable with respect, to follow this decision, because the facts of that case were different from the facts of this case and under S.151, Civil P.C., where it is a question of discretion to order refund, interference by way of exercising extraordinary powers under S.151, Civil P.C., must be dependent upon the circumstances of each case; and secondly, beyond pointing out that the Court can order refund under S.151, Civil P.C. in a case of this nature, there is neither discussion nor citation of previous authorities. I therefore prefer to dispose of this matter on first impressions.

4. On a careful review of the circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the refund asked for cannot be granted. Here are my reasons.

5. If the excess paid is treated as a kind of tax, though included in the Court-fees Act for the sake of convenience, the power to refund must rest with revenue authorities. But such levy has been held to be court-fee for the services rendered by the Court in the matter of adjudication about the title of the applicant as heir. See In the matter of the Estate of C. Govindaswami, 1937-2 Mad L J 899 (C). In this very case if there had been objections to the grant the Court would have had to decide the controversy before the grant of the certificate. Court-fee is paid in ordinary cases even where the claim is not disputed and no portion is refunded when the defendant admits the claim and suffers a decree. The fact that the applicant had included an item unnecessarily cannot warrant the exercise of the inherent powers because it was clearly his duty to have made proper