An appeal against the Master’s order regarding court fees is not maintainable as per Order XIV Rule 12 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1994.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

A.No.2780 of 2024 has been taken out for grant of interim stay, staying the operation of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Master TOS. No.9 of 2023, pending disposal of the present Appeal.

2. A.No.2792 of 2024 has been taken out to set aside the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in TOS. No.9 of 2023 by the learned Master, permit the Petitioner to file a fresh Affidavit of assets and Liabilities of the deceased, Direct the Registry to recalculate the Court Fees as per the fresh affidavit of Assets filed along with the Judges summons.

3. The Application in A.No.2792 of 2024 in the nature of an Appeal against the order of the learned Master dated 13.04.2023 in TOS.No 9 of 2023.

4. I have heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.C.Uma, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned Senior Counsel for M/S. Aiyar & Dolia, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mr. S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Mr. B.Arvind Sreevatsa, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the Applicant, would submit that the learned Master has erroneously directed the Applicant to pay Court fee invoking a wrong provision of law. She would invite my attention to Article 6 of Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965 and state that the said Article is the relevant provision and only a sum of Rs.25,000/- is payable as Court fees. She would also contend that Article 11(k) of Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965, would not apply to the facts of the present case.

6. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the beneficiaries have already taken away the Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs.1 crore and diamond jewellery worth about Rs.6 crores. Further, there are liabilities which remain unpaid and all these would have to be deducted from the net value of assets. Inadvertently, these were left out while valuing the assets in the affidavit of assets and therefore, she would submit that either the beneficiaries will have to be called upon to return the amounts and jewellery taken away by them or alternatively, the value of the same ought to be deducted from the net value of assets and in which event, no additional Court fee will become payable by the applicant/plaintiff. She would therefore pray for the above Application being allowed.

7. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the Appeal itself is not maintainabile in view of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 12 of the MADRAS HIGH COURT ORIGINAL SIDE RULES , 1994. He would also submit that under Order II Rule 3 of the MADRAS HIGH COURT ORIGINAL SIDE RULES , 1994, the learned Master had no power to adjudicate upon the issue of insufficient Court fee and therefore, the order which is now impugned in the Application is only a superfluous order. That apart, he would submit that the Court fee payable is only on the Original Petition being converted into a Testamentary Original Suit and the learned Master in any event, has rightly directed the Applicant for payment of Rs.1,02,98,452.50/-.

8. He would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sreyas Sripal & T.P.Anand vs Upasana Finance Ltd reported in 2007 (3) LW 680 in this regard. He would also invite my attention to the affidavit of assets where no debts are shown and the assets have been valued at Rs.68,65,63,498/-. He would place relianc