M.R. Srinivasan vs The Collector of Madras and Another

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Objecting the correctness of the valuation in a proceedings initiated u/s 59 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits

Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') the first respondent held an inquiry u/s 59 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the first

respondent collector invited objection from the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted his objections through the counsel and also filed a

vakalat, objecting the memo of valuation arrived at by the collector for the property in question, which is the subject matter of the proceedings

initiated u/s 59 of the Act.

Even though Section 59(3) of the Act contemplates the collector to provide a personal opportunity to the applicant and take evidence and

inquire into the matter and again section 59(5) of the Act requires the Collector to move the court before whom the application for probate or

letter of Administration was made, since the petitioner did not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, the respondent in his

proceedings dated 21.4.1994, which is impugned in this writ petition, required the petitioner to remit an additional court fee of Rs.24,244

admittedly, without giving personal opportunity. Hence, the above writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

of the first respondent dated 21.4.1994 and to quash the same and consequently, to forbear them from levying deficit court fee in O.P.No.328 of

1988, High court, Madras.

In this regard, I am obliged to refer Section 55,59,60 of the Act, which relates to the valuation of the property and the court fee to be paid for

grant of probate and letter of administration is as follows

Section 55:

Application for probate or letters of Administration-(1) Every application for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be accompanied

by a valuation shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set forth in Part 1 of Schedule III.

(2) On receipt of such application, the Court shall send a copy thereof and of the valuation to the Collector of the District in which the estate is

situated, or if the estate is situated in more than one District, to the Collector of the District in which most valuable portion of the immovable

property included in the estate is situated.

Section 59:

Inquiry by the Collector:-(1) The Collector to whom a copy of the application and the valuation has been sent u/s 55, Sub-section (2), shall

examine the same and may make or cause to be made by any Officer subordinate to him such inquiry if any, as he thinks fit as to the correctness of

the valuation or, where a part only of the property is situated in his District, of the valuation of that part, and may enquire the Collector of any other

District in which any part of the property is situated to furnish him with the correct valuation thereof.

(2) Any Collector required under Sub-section (1) to furnish the correct valuation of any property shall comply with the requisition after making or

causing to be made by an y Office subordinate to him such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit.

(3) If the Collector is of opinion that the applicant has under- estimated the value of the property of the deceased, the attendance of the applicant,

either in person or by his agent and take evidence and inquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fir, and if he still of opinion that the

value of the property has been under-estimated, any require the applicant to amend the valuation, and, if the application for probate or letters of

administration is pending in Court, to file a copy of the amended valuation in such court.

(4) if, in any such case, the probate or letters of administration has or have been granted and the applicant amends the valuation to the satisfaction

of the Collector and the Collector finds that a less fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, he shall proceed

u/s 61 Sub-section (4); but if a higher fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, the excess fee shall be refunded

to the applicant;

(5) If the applicant does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, the Collector may move the Court before which the

application for probate or letters of administration was made to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property:

Provided that no such motion shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the exhibition of the inventory required by Section

317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Central Act XXXIX of 1925).

Section 60: Application to Court and powers of Court:

(1) The Court shall, when moved by the Collectors u/s 59, Sub-Section (5) hold or cause to be held by any court or officer subordinate to it an

inquiry as to the true value at which the estate of the deceased should have been estimated. The Collector shall be deemed to be a party to the

inquiry.

(2) For the purpose of any such inquiry, the Court, or the subordinate court or the Officer authorised by the court o hold the inquiry may examine

the applicant on oath either in person or by commission, and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the

estate, and where the inquiry has been entrusted to a subordinate court or officer, such court or officer shall return to the court the evidence taken

and report the result of the inquiry and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceedings.

(3) The Court on the completion of the inquiry or on receipt to the report referred to in Sub-section(2), as the case may be, shall record a finding

as to the true value at which the estate should have been estimated and such finding shall be final.

(4) The Court may make such order in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), As top the

cost of the inquiry as it thinks fit.

A close reading of the above sections contemplates the Collector to hold an inquiry as to the correctness of the valuation of the property and

letter of administration. Section 59(3) of the Act specifically requires the attendance of the applicant either in person or by his agent and take

evidence and inquire into the matter before requiring he applicant to amend the valuation. Again, as per Section 50(5) of the Act, if the applicant

does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector the Collector is given a discretion to move the Court before which the application

for probate or letter of administration was made, to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property, the procedure to be followed by the

Collector to move the court; and the powers of the Court are prescribed u/s 60 of the Act, referred to above, which may not be necessary for the

purpose of disposal of the above writ petition as that stage has not reached.

The relevant file was produced before this Court, which do not disclose that the petitioner was given a personal opportunity by the collector

before determining the value of the property, even though Section 59(3) of the Act contemplates such opportunity and examination of evidence

and holding an inquiry into the mater. On the other hand, at page 61 of the file produced by the learned government Advocate, the petitioner

himself requested for a personal enquiry to substantiate his contentions. But, without obligation to such request, the respondent, by proceedings

dated 21.4.1994, which is impugned in this writ petition, had fixed higher valuation to the property in question, which is the subject matter in the

impugned proceedings initiated u/s 55 of the Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 24, 244 as the court fee, without complying Section 50(3) of the

Act, which provides a personal opportunity to the applicant to produce an evidence as to hold an inquiry in that regard by the collector

mandatorily. Non compliance of Section 59(3) of the act, therefore, requires me to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 21.4.1994 and

hence, I am obliged to quash the same.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.