Full Text
Translation output
9-
A-62
% 12.10.2011 fl)
Present; Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Navratan Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM(M) No.1184/2011
*
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial court. They are largely the orders passed between 19.5.2011 up to
06.6.2011.
The respondent has put in appearance. His contention is that the impugned order directing the petitioner to give market value of the suit property in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Record shows that a probate petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking probate/letter of administration qua the will dated 30.12.2002 executed by Asrukana Ray qua Flat No.H-162, Plot No.29, R.K.Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi. No objections had been filed. This petition had been disposed of on 20.01.2011.
Compliance of Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act had been directed; subject to filing of court fee the certificate was directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner. .
On 26.02.2011 the trial court had taken up the file as court fee had been paid by the petitioner; court had directed that the necessary certificate be issued to the petitioner as the court fee had been filed. Thereafter on 01.3.2011 the court had noted that
2011:DHC:19505
4\ the valuation of the suit property is 56,550/- which was based on the report of the SDM, Preet Vihar who had assessed the value on the minimum circle rate of ^11,300/- per sq. metre. The matter had been against listed for 16.3.2011 on which date court had directed the petitioner to give the market value of the suit property. On 13.4.2011 petitioner had requested for time for compliance. Matter had again been fixed for 18.4.2011. On
18.4.2011 court had noted that although the report of the SDM had been received but since it was based on the minimum circle rates; in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act since the suit property was located in the Patparganj, the petitioner was again directed to file the actual market value of the suit property. Petitioner has failed to comply with the order; this was noted on 19.5.2011. On
23.5.2011 court had noted that since the petitioner was not filing the market value of the suit property, a local commissioner should be appointed for the said purpose. Court had accordingly appointed Mr.R.K.Jain, a Government Approved Valuer to verify and give estimate of the market value of the suit property; matter has been adjourned for 06.6.2011; on 06.6.2011 none had appeared; court had consigned the file to the record room with direction to have it revived as and when the market value of the suit property is obtained.
Perusal of these orders show that the petitioner was willfully not complying with the directions given by the court; he had not filed the market value of the suit property; he had also not got the local commission executed.
Under Section 317 of the Indian Evidence Act a statutory obligation is placed upon the executor and the administrator to exhibit in court an inventory of all the property movable and immovable and of all the credit and debts due to the estate of the deceased.
Court fee payable on a petition for probate and letter of administration is according to the scale prescribed in Schedule I
Article 11 of the Court fee Act. The market value of such a property must be stated and the fee must be paid accordingly.
Section 19(H) of the said Act lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Collector if in his opinion any property situated within his estate is undervalued.
Section 12 gives ample power to the court to decide questions of valuation. Where the court considers that the question of court fee or the valuation of the suit property has been wrongly decided and is to the detriment of the revenue it shall require the party by whom such a fee is payable to pay up the additional fee.
In the instant case the court directing the petitioner to file market value of the suit property and to arrive at a final conclusion as to what is the court fee payable by the petitioner in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Impugned order does not call for any interference. Petition is without any merit. Dismiss
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2011 nandan
A-62
% 12.10.2011 fl)
Present; Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Navratan Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM(M) No.1184/2011
*
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial court. They are largely the orders passed between 19.5.2011 up to
06.6.2011.
The respondent has put in appearance. His contention is that the impugned order directing the petitioner to give market value of the suit property in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Record shows that a probate petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking probate/letter of administration qua the will dated 30.12.2002 executed by Asrukana Ray qua Flat No.H-162, Plot No.29, R.K.Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi. No objections had been filed. This petition had been disposed of on 20.01.2011.
Compliance of Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act had been directed; subject to filing of court fee the certificate was directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner. .
On 26.02.2011 the trial court had taken up the file as court fee had been paid by the petitioner; court had directed that the necessary certificate be issued to the petitioner as the court fee had been filed. Thereafter on 01.3.2011 the court had noted that
2011:DHC:19505
4\ the valuation of the suit property is 56,550/- which was based on the report of the SDM, Preet Vihar who had assessed the value on the minimum circle rate of ^11,300/- per sq. metre. The matter had been against listed for 16.3.2011 on which date court had directed the petitioner to give the market value of the suit property. On 13.4.2011 petitioner had requested for time for compliance. Matter had again been fixed for 18.4.2011. On
18.4.2011 court had noted that although the report of the SDM had been received but since it was based on the minimum circle rates; in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fee Act since the suit property was located in the Patparganj, the petitioner was again directed to file the actual market value of the suit property. Petitioner has failed to comply with the order; this was noted on 19.5.2011. On
23.5.2011 court had noted that since the petitioner was not filing the market value of the suit property, a local commissioner should be appointed for the said purpose. Court had accordingly appointed Mr.R.K.Jain, a Government Approved Valuer to verify and give estimate of the market value of the suit property; matter has been adjourned for 06.6.2011; on 06.6.2011 none had appeared; court had consigned the file to the record room with direction to have it revived as and when the market value of the suit property is obtained.
Perusal of these orders show that the petitioner was willfully not complying with the directions given by the court; he had not filed the market value of the suit property; he had also not got the local commission executed.
Under Section 317 of the Indian Evidence Act a statutory obligation is placed upon the executor and the administrator to exhibit in court an inventory of all the property movable and immovable and of all the credit and debts due to the estate of the deceased.
Court fee payable on a petition for probate and letter of administration is according to the scale prescribed in Schedule I
Article 11 of the Court fee Act. The market value of such a property must be stated and the fee must be paid accordingly.
Section 19(H) of the said Act lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Collector if in his opinion any property situated within his estate is undervalued.
Section 12 gives ample power to the court to decide questions of valuation. Where the court considers that the question of court fee or the valuation of the suit property has been wrongly decided and is to the detriment of the revenue it shall require the party by whom such a fee is payable to pay up the additional fee.
In the instant case the court directing the petitioner to file market value of the suit property and to arrive at a final conclusion as to what is the court fee payable by the petitioner in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Impugned order does not call for any interference. Petition is without any merit. Dismiss
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2011 nandan
JUDGMENT