ORDER: Petitioners contend that the proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the alleged deficit Court fee on the items comprised in the estate of late Sivakami Ammal whose Will dated 13.2.1981 was the subject matter of O.P.No.542 of 1986 in this Court, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the notice was issued several years after the grant of letters of administration. The letters were granted on 22.11.1989, while the impugned notice was issued on 14.2.1990. 2. Under Sec.59 of the Tamil Nadu Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Collector to whom a copy of the application had been sent under Sec.55(2). Sec.55(2) requires the Court to send a copy of every application for the grant of probate or letters of administration, such application being accompanied by a valuation of the estate - is, under Sec.59(1) of the Act required to examine the same, or have such an enquiry made by supporting as to the correctness of the valuation. If after such enquiry opinion is formed that the value has been understated, the Collector is to take evidence and after such evidence have been recorded, if he is still of the opinion that the value of the property has been underestimated, may require the applicant for probate or letters of administration is pending in Court, to file a copy of the amended valuation in such Court. In cases where the probate or letters have been granted and the applicant amends the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, and the Collector finds that a lesser fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, the Collector is to proceed under Sec.61(4) of the Act, which empowers him to cause the probate or letters to be properly stamped on payment of deficit fee, and also levy penalty, if he is satisfied that the original undervaluation was not bona fide. 3. In cases where 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 was made, to hold an enquiry into the true value of the property. That is provided for in Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.59 of the Act. 3. In cases where 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 was made, to hold an enquiry into the true value of the property. That is provided for in Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.59 of the Act. The proviso to that Sub-sec.(5) reads as under: “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 Sec.317 of the Indian Succession Act.” 4. In this case, it is not very clear as to when exactly the inventory was exhibited. The petitioners have given two dates in the affidavit. It is mentioned that probate was granted on 12th May, 1988. It is also stated that letters of administration with the will annexed to the property and credits of Sivagami Ammal was granted on 22.11.1989. Whichever date be correct, it is evident from Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.59 that in case the applicant does not amend the valuation, the determination of the true value of the property is only to be done by the Court to which the application for grant of probate or letters have been made, and the Collector cannot regard the determination made by him, or his subordinate after an enquiry under Sec.59(3) as final. 5. The enquiry made by the Collector or his subordinate under Sec.59, Sub-sec.(1) and the result of that enquiry referred to in Sub-sec.(3) only enables the Collector to call upon the applicant for probate or letters to amend the valuation of the property. It does not empower the Collector to regard the extent of undervaluation as determined by him as final and binding on the applicant for probate or letters and such applicant is not bound to pay the amount determined by the Collector as the deficit. 6. The result of the enquiry only enables the Collector to call upon the applicant to amend the valuation. Where amendment is made, Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.59 as also Sec.64, Sub-sec.(4) of the Act will operate. If such amendment is not carried out by the applicant, the Collector has no alternative, but to move the Court which issued the probate letters to hold an enquiry into the true value of the property. Where amendment is made, Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.59 as also Sec.64, Sub-sec.(4) of the Act will operate. If such amendment is not carried out by the applicant, the Collector has no alternative, but to move the Court which issued the probate letters to hold an enquiry into the true value of the property. The Proviso to Sub-sec.(5) prescribes the period of limitation of six months from the date of execution of the inventory, within which the Collector must move the Court. 7. In this case, the Collector has filed a counter-affidavit which makes it abundantly clear that the Collector has not moved the Court, and that there has been no determination made by the Court of the true value of the properties comprised in the inventory. The fact that the enquiry before the Collector dragged on for a long time cannot by itself be a reason for the Collector to assume the jurisdiction of the Court. 8. The assertion made by the Collector in the order dated 27.12.1993 that Sec.59(5) of the Act is not mandatory is without any merit. The Collector has clearly misconstrued the scope of the power conferred on the Collector. 9. The proceedings for grant of probate or letters of administration is initiated in the Court. Inventory is to be exhibited in Court, The Collector’s role is only to assist the Court. If the determination made by the Collector is accepted by the applicant for probate and the valuation of the items are amended, it is only then the Collector can exercise powers under Sec.61(4). If the valuation is not amended in the manner decided by the Collector, the Collector must necessarily apply to the Court for the determination of the true value of the properties. 10. Writ Petition No.1604 of 1994 is therefore, allowed. No costs. 11. In W.P.No.962 of 1994, the order sought to be quashed is not a final order, but the order by which the preliminary enquiry was begun. That prayer is obviously a mistake. The stand of the Collector is disclosed in the subsequent order of the year 1983 where it is asserted that Sec.59(5) of the Act is not mandatory. That order is also quashed. W.P.No.962 of 1994 is also, therefore, allowed. No costs.