Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Probate Case, Holding Court Fee Payable on Probate Value Not Property Value. Interpretation of Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 determines court fee on probate application based on value of estate as per will, not market value of property.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 16
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants filed Misc. Application No. 15/2002 for issuance of a Probate Certificate in respect of a Will dated 14.12.1992 executed by deceased Gangadhar. The Trial Court issued public notice. Initially, some opponents admitted the contents, but later opponents 1,2,5,6 resisted. Opponent No.1 filed an application requesting the Court to frame an issue regarding maintainability for want of payment of court fees and jurisdiction. The Trial Court framed issues including whether the opponents prove that the Court has no jurisdiction and whether the application is not maintainable for want of court fees. The Trial Court held that the application was not maintainable for want of court fees and directed the appellants to pay court fees on the market value of the property. The appellants appealed. The High Court considered the interpretation of Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The Court held that the court fee payable on a probate application is on the value of the estate as per the will, not on the market value of the property. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's order, and directed the Trial Court to decide the probate application on merits after determining the court fee payable on the value of the estate as per the will.

Headnote

A) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 - Court Fee on Probate Application - Computation of court fee - The court fee payable on an application for grant of probate is to be computed on the value of the estate as per the will, not on the market value of the property. The Trial Court erred in directing the appellants to pay court fee on the market value of the property. Held that the court fee is payable on the value of the estate as per the will (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the court fee payable on an application for grant of probate under Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is to be computed on the value of the estate as per the will or on the market value of the property?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Order of Trial Court dated 30.06.2009 set aside. Trial Court directed to decide the probate application on merits after determining the court fee payable on the value of the estate as per the will.

Law Points

  • Interpretation of Section 29 read with Schedule I
  • Clause 10 of Bombay Court Fees Act
  • 1959
  • Court fee on probate application is payable on the value of the estate as per the will
  • not on the market value of the property
  • Probate proceedings are not adversarial in nature
  • Issue of court fee is a preliminary issue
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 7

First Appeal No. 850 of 2009

2011-04-07

S. V. Gangapurwala

Shri A. B. Kale for Appellants, Shri K. N. Lokhande for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6

Shashikant S/o Gangadhar Thorat and Anil S/o Gangadhar Thorat

Punja S/o Gangadhar Thorat and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of Trial Court directing payment of court fee on market value of property in probate application

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought setting aside of Trial Court's order and direction to decide probate application on merits

Filing Reason

Trial Court held probate application not maintainable for want of court fees and directed payment on market value

Previous Decisions

Trial Court framed issues and held that application is not maintainable for want of court fees

Issues

Whether the court fee payable on a probate application is to be computed on the value of the estate as per the will or on the market value of the property?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that court fee is payable on the value of the estate as per the will, not on market value Respondents argued that court fee should be paid on market value of property

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, the court fee payable on an application for grant of probate is to be computed on the value of the estate as per the will, not on the market value of the property.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal involves the interpretation of Sec. 29 r/w Clause 10 of Schedule I, of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 The Trial Court held that the application is not maintainable for want of court fees and directed the appellants to pay court fees on the market value of the property.

Procedural History

Appellants filed Misc. Application No. 15/2002 for probate. Trial Court issued public notice. Opponents initially admitted but later resisted. Opponent No.1 raised issue of court fees. Trial Court framed issues and held application not maintainable for want of court fees, directing payment on market value. Appellants filed First Appeal No. 850 of 2009 in High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959: Section 29, Schedule I Clause 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Probate Case, Holding Court Fee Payable on Probate Value Not Property Value. Interpretation of Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 determines court fee on probate application ba...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Operation of Deccan Odyssey Luxury Train Outside Maharashtra. Court holds that the train was conceived as a national tourism project and its operation outside the state does not violate any statutory or con...