9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Excessive valuation of item 3 by the District Judge. 2. Disallowance of estate duty deduction by the District Judge. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Excessive Valuation of Item 3 by the District Judge: The petitioner contested the District Judge's valuation of her husband's share in item 3, which was estimated at Rs. 33,686, whereas she had valued it at Rs. 10,000. The District Judge capitalized the aggregate rent of Rs. 415 realized from item 3 in 1960 using a twenty-year rule. The petitioner argued that the rent of Rs. 415 was realized after improvements made to the property post her husband's death, which should not be considered in the valuation for probate purposes. The court noted that the material date for determining the market value was August 16, 1960, as per section 53(1)(b) of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The only witness, a clerk of the petitioner, testified that the improvements increased the rent from Rs. 96 to Rs. 415 per month. However, the District Judge failed to adequately consider this evidence. The court concluded that the correct valuation should exclude the rent increase due to improvements and determined the value of the testator's interest in item 3 to be Rs. 19,200, validating the petitioner's estimate of Rs. 10,000 for her husband's half share. 2. Disallowance of Estate Duty Deduction by the District Judge: The District Judge disallowed the deduction of Rs. 30,000 paid as estate duty by the petitioner, which was contested as being without jurisdiction and impermissible. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the Estate Duty Act. It concluded that the estate's market value for court-fee computation should consider the estate duty liability. The court highlighted that the estate duty is a charge on the property passing on the death of the deceased and must be deducted from the estate's market value. The market value relevant for section 53 of the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is the value of the estate burdened with the liability to pay estate duty. The court emphasized that the estate which comes into the executor's hands is already burdened with the estate duty liability, and the market value should reflect this burden. The court referenced the House of Lords' decision in Winans v. Attorney-General, affirming that estate duty is levied on the property passing upon death, not on its destination. The court concluded that the District Judge erred in disregarding the estate duty in the computation of the court-fee. Conclusion: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the District Judge's order to the extent indicated. The petitioner was directed to amend the valuation from Rs. 44,064.16 nP. to Rs. 46,064.16 nP., with the deficient court-fee to be paid on this basis. If the enhanced court-fee directed by the District Judge had already been paid, the excess court-fee was to be refunded to the petitioner. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in both courts.
|
