JUDGMENT Ameer Ali, J. - This is an application on behalf of the Collector of Calcutta for an enquiry under sec. 19H of the Court-fees Act (XI of 1899) into the correct value of the assets left by one Mr. Stevenson, deceased, a Tea planter in Assam. It appears that among other properties he left a ten annas share in a Tea estate situated in that province. Upon an application for letters of administration to his estate by Mr. G. Henderson of Octavius Steel & Co., acting as attorney for the executors, the ten annas share of the said Tea estate was valued at Rs. 1,20,000. 2. The Collector of Calcutta was of opinion that the valuation set forth in the affidavit of Mr. G. Henderson was below the proper value of the property and he accordingly applied to this Court for an enquiry under the Court-fees Act. The matter came before Mr. Justice Sale on the 12th of February 1902. On behalf of the applicant for letters of administration it was contended, as I understand it, that it was not enough for the Collector simply to make an application for an enquiry but that he was bound to place before the Court proper materials that an enquiry was needed, in other words, to make a case for enquiry upon definite facts. 3. Mr. Justice Sale accepted that contention and in his judgment said as follows :--"In the case of an enquiry being directed by the Court it is obvious that considerable expense must be incurred. The Act does not specify in what way or by whom that expense should be met, and I think under the circumstances it would be the duty of the Court if possible and if the circumstances permit to hold the enquiry, referred to, itself and so save further expense to the parties." 4. I may say that I entirely endorse that observation and in similar cases propose to adopt the same course. 5. Then his Lordship proceeded:--"The course. I propose to adopt is to adjourn the application in order that the Collector may set forth the result of the enquiry he has held and the grounds upon which he desires the Court to hold a further enquiry." 6. As I understand, it means an enquiry other than that held by the Collector. 5. Then his Lordship proceeded:--"The course. I propose to adopt is to adjourn the application in order that the Collector may set forth the result of the enquiry he has held and the grounds upon which he desires the Court to hold a further enquiry." 6. As I understand, it means an enquiry other than that held by the Collector. The learned Judge accordingly adjourned the matter for a fortnight "and gave the administrator liberty to answer further grounds set forth by the Collector within a week from filing of same." And he concluded by directing--"The matter to be set down in the miscellaneous list the first motion day after the time for filing affidavit by the administrator in reply." 7. This order was made on the 12th of February 1902, to-day is the 14th of April. 8. An affidavit has been filed on the part of the Collector by Peary Churn Dey who states he is the Superintendent of the Stamp Department in the Calcutta Collectorate. 9. In answer there is an affidavit by Mr. F.H. Day which will require attention, Mr. Woodroffe for the Collector contends that the order of the learned Judge must be construed to mean that the case was to come on as directed by his Lordship for the purpose of setting it down for some other day for the enquiry. I do not read the order in that sense. I understand the learned Judge to mean that the Collector was to place on affidavit all materials he possessed that would induce the Court to call on the other side to answer the allegation relating to undervaluation. In other words the Collector was to place before the Court materials sufficient to enable it to determine whether there should be any enquiry by itself or by some one else. There was no idea, as I apprehended it, that the matter should merely come up for a mere direction, otherwise there would have been no order directing that the matter should be set down on the list. 10. To my mind the Judge intended to deal with the matter on the day it came on. In view of the circumstances to which Mr. Justice Sale referred, I do not think the case ought to stand over again. 10. To my mind the Judge intended to deal with the matter on the day it came on. In view of the circumstances to which Mr. Justice Sale referred, I do not think the case ought to stand over again. Ample time has been allowed to the Collector to produce the materials the Court required relating to the question of undervaluation and those materials collected in the course of the two months that have elapsed are now before me. Peary Churn Dey says that from a communication addressed to the Collector by the Assistant Commissioner of Golaghat the latter officer gathered that the property was worth 3 lacs, but that from a subsequent communication from the same officer it appears his head-clerk had made a mistake and that the 3 lacs was the value of the entire property and not of the ten annas share belonging to Mr. Stevenson. 11. The value he put on the ten annaa share was Rs. 1,87,500. 12. In one of his letters the Assistant Commissioner states that he was told by the other sharer of the property that the value of the property was considerably more than that stated by the executor. 13. In the affidavit of Peary Churn Dey it is also stated that at the beginning of the year the deceased's ten annas share was offered for sale in England for 12,000 and it is upon those statements that reliance is placed by the Collector that the valuation of the administrator is not correct. 14. Mr. F.H. Day, the constituted attorney of Mr. G. Henderson, the administrator, swears that he is acquainted with the facts connected with this matter; that the administrator, in his affidavit made in 1899, stated the property to be worth Rs. 1,20,000; that the executor to the Will of the deceased had failed to obtain a purchaser for the property in question and that he would be glad to sell Mr. Stevenson's share if the Deputy Commissioner was able to find a purchaser at the figure he (the Deputy Commissioner) mentions. 15. Mr. Day then sets out letters from the administrator's solicitor to the Collector and goes on to say that after the notice on the 2nd of May 1900, referred to in the affidavit of Peary Churn Dey, Octavius Steel & Co. 15. Mr. Day then sets out letters from the administrator's solicitor to the Collector and goes on to say that after the notice on the 2nd of May 1900, referred to in the affidavit of Peary Churn Dey, Octavius Steel & Co. made enquiries from the manager of another Tea estate who had considerable experience of such properties regarding the value of the ten annas share of Mr. Stevenson, deceased. He sets out the reply of the manager in question who stated that the valuation of the administrator was a very fair one and he considered it ample especially when it was taken into consideration that the estate last year worked at a loss. 16. This letter was also forwarded to the Collector but he was not satisfied. After that, the administrator received notice calling on him to show cause why the value of the estate should not be enhanced. 17 It will be remembered that the Assistant Commissioner is said to have mentioned to the Collector upon the authority of Mr. Stevenson's co-sharer that the value of the estate was considerably over that mentioned by the administrator and naturally the firm of which Mr. G. Henderson is a member wrote to the co-sharer to ask whether the statement which was said to have been made by him to the Deputy Commissioner and on which the Deputy Commissioner had made the communication to the Collector was correct. He was also asked as to how he came to value the property at a higher price than what the trustees had offered to sell the share to him for and which he had declined. 18. His answer is set out in the affidavit of Mr. Day. In that letter Mr. Cambridge states that he considers Rs. 1,20,000 too much for the property in question and then goes on to say that "To the best of my knowledge (and I have also referred back to my diary and letter book) I have never been asked nor have given the Deputy Commissioner any valuation at all of Mr. Stevenson's share, nor if I had been asked should I have put it at Rs. 1,20,000 as that was the sum Mr. S--offered it to me at and I did not consider it worth it. I am now also fully confirmed in my decision." 19. Then Mr. Stevenson's share, nor if I had been asked should I have put it at Rs. 1,20,000 as that was the sum Mr. S--offered it to me at and I did not consider it worth it. I am now also fully confirmed in my decision." 19. Then Mr. Day gives other facts from which it is clear to my mind that the valuation put on the property by Mr. Henderson should be accepted in the absence of any materials on the part of the Collector to lead to the conclusion that the property has been undervalued. 20. It is not necessary for me to refer to those facts as they are set out in the affidavit. I quite recognise that the fiscal interests of the Government should be kept in view but at the same time the Court must not ignore the interests of the general public. 21. The enquiry under sec. 19H is one which must be based on proper materials. 22. The Collector seems to me not to have given sufficient attention to the different facts which from time to time were put before him by the administrator nor to the assurance by him that if the property fetched more than Rs. 1,20,000, he would be prepared to pay additional fee on the excess. For these reasons I think the application must be rejected and I reject it accordingly. Under sub-sec. 5 of section in question, I find, and direct a finding to be entered, that the value of the property in question was as near as possible Rs. 1,20,000.