In contested probate applications, the court fee must be assessed according to the market value of the estate based on established statutory procedures.

JUDGMENT

What is the court fee to be paid on an application for probate/letters of administration is the question posed in the original petition.

2. The plaintiff in O.S No.2/2014 of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur (court below) has assailed Ext P8 order in the original petition. The respondent is the brother of the petitioner and defendant in the suit.

3. The relevant background facts leading to Ext P8 order are;

(i) The petitioner had filed LAOP No.577/2013 before the court below under Sec.278 of the Indian Succession Act to issue letters of administration in respect of the Will executed by his father – late K.K Govindan.

(ii) The petitioner valued the original petition at Rs.50,000/- and paid a court fee of Rs.6,000/- under Sec.56 read with Article 6 of Schedule I of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act , 1959 (in short ‘Court Fees Act’).

(iii) The respondent has filed Ext P2 objection, inter alia, disputing the Will, the valuation of the original petition and the court fee paid.

(iv) In view of the Ext P2 objection, the court below converted the original petition to a suit i.e., O.S.No.2/2014.

(v) The petitioner filed IA No.4438/2014 (Ext P3), volunteering to pay the requisite court fee on the fair value of the property covered by the Will.

(vi) Subsequently, the petitioner filed IA No.3721/2015 (Ext P4), seeking leave to amend the valuation portion of the plaint. The respondent opposed Ext P4 application by filing Ext P5 objection. The court below, by Ext P6 order, dismissed Ext P4 application.

(vii) Later, the petitioner filed IA No.412/2016 (Ext P7)

to amend the relief and valuation portion of the plaint. The court below again, by the impugned Ext P8 order, dismissed Ext P7 application.

(viii) Ext P8 is ex facie illegal, improper and irregular.

Hence, the original petition.

4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the original petition. The respondent has contended that the valuation of the plaint is incorrect. Ext.R1(e) fair value notification substantiates the value of the property. The respondent had filed I.A.No.4438/2014 to hear the question of valuation as a preliminary issue. By Ext.P3 order, the court below permitted the petitioner to value the plaint, which was not done. Instead, the petitioner filed Ext P4 application to amend the plaint, with the sole intention to protract the payment of the court fee. The respondent has also filed Ext.R1(f) court fee statement. Accepting the respondent’s contention, the court below, by Ext P 6 order, had directed the petitioner to pay the requisite court fee under Section 25 (a) of the Court Fees Act. Exts. P3 and P6 orders have become final and conclusive. It is to indirectly get over the said orders, the petitioner had filed Ext.P7 application, which again was opposed by the respondent. The court below has rightly rejected Ext P7 application by the impugned Ext P8 order. The petitioner is estopped from challenging Ext P8 order without assailing Exts.P3 and P6 orders. The original petition is meritless and may be dismissed.

5. Heard; Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The petitioner had filed LAOP No.577/2013 to issue letters of administration in respect of the Will executed by the father of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent resisted the original petition through Ext.P2 objection, disputing the Will.

7. This Court has framed Rules under the Indian Succession Act 1925. It is profitable to extract Rule 26 of the Rules, which reads thus:

“26. Conversion of application into suit.-- Upon the affidavit in support of the caveat being filed, notice whereof shall simultaneously be given by the caveator to the petitioner. The proceedings shall be ordered by the Court to be numbered as a suit in which the petitioner for probate or Letters of Administration shall be the plaintiff and the cavea