Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the court could refix the valuation disclosed in the probate petition and require the petitioner to amend the valuation and pay additional court-fee on the basis of the valuation accepted in the estate duty proceedings.
Analysis: The Court held that the statutory procedure for objections by the Collector under the Court-Fees Act did not exclude the court's power to examine whether the valuation was correct. Once a caveat is filed, probate proceedings are to be treated as a suit and the civil procedure applicable to suits permits the court to require correction of an undervalued plaint. The Court also held that the valuation disclosed before the Controller of Estate Duty was not a separate and unrelated figure, because the estate duty law required the same valuation/account to be furnished for representation proceedings and authorised the Controller to determine the principal value after inquiry. As the petitioner had accepted the estate duty assessment and had not challenged it in appeal, she could not insist on a lower valuation for probate purposes.
Conclusion: The court had authority to adopt the estate duty valuation for probate purposes and to direct amendment of the petition with payment of the deficit court-fee.