R. Gurunathan vs The District Collector of Madras and Another

K.A. Swami, C.J.—At the stage of admission, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice and obtain the records and

ascertain as to whether an order u/s 59(3) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act was passed by the Collector. Accordingly,

learned Government Pleader has secured the records.

The appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.7.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11388 of 1994. In the writ petition,

the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order dated 3.9.1993 passed by the District Collector directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.

36,641 being the additional court-fee payable in O.P. No. 241 of 1992.

Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that there is a delay in filing the writ petition, hence the petitioner/appellant is

guilty of laches. Accordingly learned single Judge has declined to exercise the jurisdiction.

We have heard both sides. This is a case in which, demand for additional court-fee is made after the probate is issued by the court. Chapter VI

of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), deals with Probates, Letters of Administration

and Certificate of Administration. Secs. 55 to 65 are contained in Chapter VI of the Act. Section 55(1) provides that every application for grant of

Probate or Letters of Administration, shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set forth in Part I of Schedule III.

Sub-section (2) thereof provides that 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, the Collector of the District in which the most

valuable portion of the immovable property included in the estate is situated. Section 56 provides for the levy of fee chargeable for the grant of

probate or Letters of Administration and computation of the fee payable. Section 57 deals with the grant of probate. Proviso to Section 57 also

enables the Court to grant probate or letters of administration, notwithstanding that the prescribed fee has not been paid to the Administrator-

General in his official capacity on his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that the said fee will be paid within such time as may be

fixed by the court.

Section 58 deals with the relief in cases of several grants. Section 59 deals with the enquiry by the Collector. Sub-section (1) thereof provides

that the Collector to whom a copy of the application and of the valuation has been sent u/s 55(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 require the Collector of any other district in which any part of the property

is situated, to furnish him with the correct valuation thereof. Any other Collector so required has to furnish the correct valuation of any property

situated within his jurisdiction. Sub-section (3) of Section 59 empowers the Collector to take evidence in the event he is of the opinion that the

applicant has underestimated the value of the property of the deceased and enquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit. On such

enquiry, if he is still of the opinion that the value of the property has been under estimated, he is entitled to require the applicant to amend the

valuation, and, if the application for probate or letters of Administration is pending in the court, to file a copy of the amended valuation in such

court. Sub-section (4) deals with a case, in which, probate or letters of administration has or have been granted and the applicant has amended the

valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector. In such case, if the Collector finds that a less fee has been paid than was payable according to the true

value of the estate, he can proceed in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section 61 and cause the probate or letters of administration to be

properly stamped on payment of the deficit fee and if he is satisfied that the original under-valuation was not bona fide, it is open to him to levy in

addition a penalty not exceeding five limes the deficit fee. Therefore, for the purpose of demanding additional court-fee, as is now demanded, on

the probate or letters of administration, an enquiry as contemplated u/s 59(3) and determination of the value of the estate of the deceased is

necessary. In the instant case, as the records reveal, no such determination has been made. In the instant case, the records reveal that notice was

issued to the petitioner/appellant for the purpose of holding an enquiry u/s 59 of the Act by the Collector, but the petitioner did not appear before

him pursuant to the notice. However, the failure on the part of the petitioner/appellant to appear before the Collector pursuant to the notice issued

u/s 59 of the Act did not absolve Collector from his statutory obligation to determine the question as to whether there was under valuation of the

property, and if that be so, to determine the additional Court fee payable in that regard. As pointed out above, no such determination has been

made by the Collector. Consequently, it follows that the further proceedings taken for recovery of the amount representing the additional court-fee

payable on the value of the estate of the deceased as arrears of revenue, cannot be sustained.

However, Mr. Jayaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the provisions contained in Section56(1) of the Act in

support of his contention that as the property comprised in the letters of administration, is a trust property, no fee is payable under Chapter VI of

the Act. We do not consider it necessary to examine this contention, as it is open to the petitioner/appellant to put forth the plea before the

Collector.

Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 3.7.1994 passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The letter of the 1st

respondent dated 3.9.1993 demanding additional court-fee in a sum of Rs. 36,641 is quashed. The proceedings are remitted to the Collector with

a direction to decide the issue as to whether there has been an undervaluation of the property comprised in the letters of administration, after

affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant to put forth his say including the contention that under the proviso to Section 56(1) the property

comprised in letters of administration is not liable to any fee under Chapter VI of the Act. To avoid further delay in the matter, we direct the

petitioner/appellant to appear before the Collector on 15th March, 1995 without waiting for the notice and in the event the petitioner fails to

appear on 15.3.1995 it is open to the Collector to proceed in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs.