Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 696 (PAT)

Santosh Kumar v. Estate Of Narsingh Narain Singh

2007-04-05

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Addl District Judge-VI, Patna in Title Suit No. 4 of 2003/LA. 98/2002, by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to dispose of their petition filed for calling the valuation report and/or siristedar report. 2. The aforesaid L.A. No. 98 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the property under the Will was valued at Rupees One Lakh and inadvertently an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, which is the maximum court fee payable in such case, was deposited. 3. In the said circumstances, it is stated that the petition was filed for calling the valuation report of the Collector, Patna and passing an order thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the provisions of Sec. 19-H of the Court Fee Act in support of his said stand that the court below should call for a report from the Collector and pass an order thereupon in order to refund any excess amount that has been paid by the petitioners. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, that earlier also, the petitioner had filed C.R. No. 1260 of 2005 and by order dated 29.8.2005 this court while dismissing the revision petition as withdrawn had observed that it is needless to say that the court below will get the order of the Collector and shall pass necessary order with regard to valuation/court fee. 4. It is submitted that the court below has completely ignored the observations and directions of this court while passing the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that there was no justification for acting upon the said petition of the petitioners. It was submitted that so far as reliance upon the provisions of Sec. 19-H of the Act was concerned, they have no relevance and in this regard, learned counsel sought to place Sec. 19-1 as relevant provision for the said purpose. Under the said provision, the court is only required to see that the petitioner has filed a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation. 6. Under the said provision, the court is only required to see that the petitioner has filed a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation. 6. Learned counsel specifically relies upon sub-section (2) of the said Section 19(1) which provides that the grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of any motion made by the Collector under Sec. 19-H subsection (4) of the Act. 7. In view of the specific provisions, learned counsel submitted that the court below has already acted in terms of the provisions of Sec. 19-H of the Act by sending the necessary intimation to the Collector as required by the said Section and thereafter, it is for the Collector to take further steps in the matter regarding valuation of the property and only after the Collector submits the report and the same has not been accepted by the petitioners then the Court may make inquiry into valuation of the property and pass an order thereupon. It is further submitted that any refund can be claimed by the petitioners only after conclusion of the proceedings or after the probate or letters of administration is granted by the court by approaching the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the local area concerned and it is for such authority to pass an order in that regard. 8. On a consideration of rival contentions of the parties, I find that there is force in the contention of the opposite parties. 8. On a consideration of rival contentions of the parties, I find that there is force in the contention of the opposite parties. So far as the provisions of Sec. 19-H of the Act are concerned, it is evident that the court has only to cause the full value of the application to be given to the Collector and thereafter it is for the Collector to take further steps in the matter and if the Collector is of the opinion that the petitioner has under-estimated the value of the property, he may require the attendance of the petitioner and take evidence and enquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit and, if the Collector is still of opinion that the value of the property has been underestimated, he may require the petitioner to amend the valuation and only if the petitioner does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector then he may move the court concerned to hold an enquiry into the true value of the property and thereafter the court shall make such an enquiry. Further it is specifically mentioned in Sec. 19-1(2) of the Act that such motion by the Collector under sec. 19-H(4) shall not be a ground for delaying the grant of probate or letters of administration. 9. In the aforesaid view of law and the facts of this case, it is evident that the court below has acted in accordance with law by refusing to first act upon the petition filed by the petitioners. It is for the Collector to take further steps in the matter and not for the court to coerce the Collector to file the valuation report. For the fault of the petitioners, they cannot be permitted to delay and hold up the proceedings of the probate case or letters of administration case that has been filed with respect to the valuation matter. 10. Thus, there is no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.