ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner in Probate O.P.No.258 of 2019 questioning the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the I Additional District Court, Salem.

2. Probate O.P.No.258 of 2019 had been filed by the revision petitioner herein under Sections 232, 235 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking to prove the Will dated 16.07.2014 and the Codicil dated 14.11.2018 in common form and to grant Letters of Administration attaching the Will and Codicil with respect to the properties described in the schedule to the petition in favour of the petitioner.

3. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that under a Will executed by R.P.Sarathy son of K.V.Radhakrishnan Chettiar on 16.07.2014 and under a Codicil on 14.11.2018, the properties which had been described in Schedule A to the petition had been bequeathed to the petitioner and the properties described in Schedule B to the petition had been bequeathed to the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

4. It must be pointed out that the petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent is the sister of the 2nd respondent. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are the son and daughters of R.P.Sarathy. The 5th and 6th respondents are the executors mentioned in the said Will.

5. Let me not enter into any further discussion on the genuineness or otherwise of the Will or even about the mental and physical health condition of R.P.Sarathy at the time when he is said to have executed the Will and Codicil. The order converting the petition into a suit is not seriously challenged and I uphold that part of the order.

6. The short point which arises for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is with respect to the Court fees payable in the said petition, particularly, since the 1st respondent had entered a caveat and had stated that the petition should be converted into a suit and court fee be paid accordingly. The order converting the petition into a suit is not seriously challenged and I uphold that part of the order.

7. In this connection, a memo had been filed by the 1st respondent in Probate O.P.No.258 of 2019 and in the said memo, it had been stated that a Caveat Original Petition No.645 of 2019 had been filed and was pending on the date of presentation of the Probate Original Petition. It was therefore sought that the Probate Original Petition should be converted as a suit. The logical extension of such a request was placing an obligation on the petitioner to pay court fees in accordance with the value of the properties for which Probate or Letters of Administration was sought. That was the only issue on which the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, passed an order on 29.09.2020, which order is now questioned by the revision petitioner.

8. In the said order, the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, after examining the various precedents cited particularly pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in AIR 1989 Mad 111, Philo Peter & Arputhasamy Vs. Divyanathan & others, had come to a conclusion that the Probate Original Petition should be converted into an Original Suit after payment of necessary court fees.

9. This order, naturally requires an examination of the reasonings given by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in AIR 1989 Mad 111, Philo Peter & Arputhasamy Vs. Divyanathan & others.

10. In AIR 1989 Mad 111, Philo Peter referred above, the Division Bench was tasked to answer a reference to decide the question as to whether court fees is payable on one half of the value of the properties, on an Application filed under Sections 276 and 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1960 as amended, for grant of probate regarding a Will when the matter becomes contentious. Even before examining the said ratio laid down in the said judgment, it would be appropriate t