ORDER

Petitioner in unnumbered SOP in S.R.No.1373 dated

18.04.2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Page 2 of 6 2023:APHC:2137

2. Revision petitioner filed Succession OP under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “Act 1925”) praying the Court to award succession certificate in favour of petitioner and respondent No.1 holding that they are only legal heirs of late Madipalli Chandravathi and issue succession certificate for 50% of the shares mentioned in the schedule of late Chandravathi held in respondents 2 to 15 companies or its successor companies including 50% of any bonus shares allotted to the original holdings and unclaimed dividends over the said shares.

3. In SOP, it was mentioned that petitioner and 1st respondent are daughters of late Madipalli Chandravathi. The said Chandravathi died on 17.09.2017 at Bhimavaram. During the lifetime of said Chandravathi, she acquired shares mentioned in the petition. A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- as per Schedule-II, Article-2 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short “CF Act”)

4. By order dated 16.08.2022, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,47,650/- towards succession certificate charges and adjourned the matter to 29.09.2022.

Page 3 of 6 2023:APHC:2137 Since succession certificate charges are not paid, it was again adjourned to 30.12.2022. Aggrieved by the said docket order dated 16.08.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,47,650/- towards succession certificate charges, the present revision is filed.

5. Heard Sri Eerla Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that succession OP is filed seeking certificate in favour of petitioner and 1st respondent for 50% of shares and 50% of bonus shares in favour of Madipalli Chandravathi, however, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,47,650/- towards succession certificate charge, at the initial stage is bad in law. He would also submit that payment of deposit would arise at the time of issuance of certificate as per Section 372 of the Act 1925 and thus, prayed to set aside the order.

7. Now, the point, arise for consideration is:

Whether the direction of the Court below to deposit Rs.40,47,650/- towards succession Page 4 of 6 2023:APHC:2137 certificate when the petitioner claimed 50% is sustainable?

8. In K.Girija Kumari Vs. Konuru Swarajya Lakshmi1, learned single Judge of the composite High Court held thus:

5. The succession certificate, if granted by the Court would entitle the petitioner therein to receive the debt or security (for short security) claimed in the O.P. It is for this reason that Court fee is required to be paid while presenting the application. Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires the petitioner to state the relevant particulars such as time of death, the particulars of other family members etc. One of the important particulars is the one provided for under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 namely "The right in which the petitioner claims". This has to be stated in precise form. The deceased person may have left vast security behind him. If the applicant alone is entitled for the entire security, the Court fee needs to be paid on such an amount.

6. However, where the security is to be distributed among various persons, each person claiming the succession certificate corresponding to their share cannot be required to pay Court fee on the entire amount of security. If such is the course of action is to be adopted, a situation may arise where the amount of Court fee may be equal to, or even exceed the amount representing security left by the deceased, if there exist number of claimants. For example, if there are 20 successors entitled to share the security and if each one of them is required to pay the Court fee at 6% on the entire