Probate court-fee valuation must exclude post-death improvements and deduct estate duty from the estate's market value.

Probate court-fee valuation must reflect the deceased's estate as it stood at death, not any enhanced value created by post-death improvements. The article states that the higher rental value relied on for item 3 was unsupported because it arose after the petitioner improved the property, so the deceased's half share was to be valued on the earlier evidence. It also states that estate duty, being a liability attaching to property passing on death, must be deducted when determining market value for probate court-fee under the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, since the estate is valued as burdened property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of the deceased's half share in item 3 had been correctly assessed for the purpose of probate court-fee; and (ii) whether estate duty paid in respect of the estate was deductible in determining the market value of the estate for court-fee under the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Issue (i): Whether the value of the deceased's half share in item 3 had been correctly assessed for the purpose of probate court-fee.

Analysis: The relevant date for valuation under section 53(1)(b) of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 was the date of the application for probate, since the application was made more than one year after death. The evidence showed that the higher rents relied on by the District Judge arose only after improvements made by the petitioner after the deceased's death. The estate to be valued was the property left by the deceased in the condition in which it stood at death, not the enhanced value created by the executor or heirs. The District Judge failed to give adequate weight to the unchallenged evidence regarding the earlier rental position and the effect of post-death improvements.

Conclusion: The valuation of the deceased's half share in item 3 at Rs. 33,686 was unsustainable and the petitioner's valuation was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether estate duty paid in respect of the estate was deductible in determining the market value of the estate for court-fee under the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Analysis: Sections 52 and 53 of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, read with Schedule III, require valuation of the estate that has come or is likely to come into the hands of the executor. Under the Estate Duty Act, estate duty attaches on the passing of property on death and the property received by the executor is burdened with that liability. The market value for probate court-fee must therefore reflect the burden of estate duty, because a willing purchaser would pay only for the property as encumbered by that liability. Section 53(2) of the Mysore Act permits further deductions after the initial valuation, and does not exclude the prior deduction of estate duty.

Conclusion: Estate duty paid or payable in respect of the estate had to be deducted while computing the market value for probate court-fee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the District Judge's valuation order was modified, and court-fee was confined to the revised valuation after allowing deduction for estate duty and correcting the valuation of item 3.

Ratio Decidendi: For probate court-fee, the estate must be valued as the property burdened with estate duty liability, and post-death improvements cannot be used to inflate the market value of the deceased's estate.

---