INTRODUCTION:
The High Court of Bombay-Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 12 June 2023. In the case of PRAKASHCHANDRA DEOKARANJI BHOOT AND OTHERS Vs MANOHARLAL DEOKARANJI BHOOT AND ANOTHER IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8387 OF 2018 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI SA MENEZES the judgment in question focuses on the interpretation of Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The case revolves around the maintainability of an application for a Succession Certificate when the requisite fee, as per Section 379(1) of the Act, has not been paid at the time of application. This blog aims to analyse the judgment, explore the arguments presented by both sides, and shed light on the relevant laws governing the issuance of Succession Certificates in India.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Manoharlal Deokaranji Bhoot, filed an application seeking a Succession Certificate for the estate of his deceased mother. However, the respondents opposed the application, arguing that it was not maintainable due to non-payment of court fees under Section 379(1) of the Act. The trial court dismissed this objection, stating that the payment of court fees did not affect the maintainability of the application or the court’s jurisdiction.
RELEVANT LAWS:
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: The primary legislation governing matters related to succession and inheritance in India.
- Section 372: Outlines the procedure for filing an application for a Succession Certificate, including the necessary particulars to be provided.
- Section 379: Addresses the mode of collecting court fees on certificates and requires a deposit equal to the fee payable under the Court Fees Act.
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 379(1):
Section 379(1) of the Indian Succession Act states that every application for a Succession Certificate should be accompanied by a deposit equal to the fee payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, or its regional counterparts. However, the section does not specify the consequences of non-deposit of the required sum at the time of application.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the provision of Section 379(1) necessitated the deposit of court fees along with the application. They emphasized that the use of the phrase “accompanied by” indicated that the application should not be entertained without the requisite fees.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel argued that Section 379(1) did not mandate the immediate payment of court fees. They contended that the deposit could be made at the time of determining the share of each party when the court issued the final Succession Certificate. They relied on previous judgments to support their interpretation.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
The court examined the provisions of Section 372 and Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 372 outlines the procedure for filing an application for a Succession Certificate, while Section 379 addresses the mode of collecting court fees on certificates.
The court observed that Section 372 did not explicitly require the presentation of court fees along with the application. It further noted that Section 379(1) called for a deposit of a sum equal to the fee payable under the Court Fees Act, which would be utilized for purchasing stamps when issuing the Succession Certificate. The court concluded that the sum to be deposited was not actual court fees under the Court Fees Act but an amount that could be refunded or expended at the time of final orders.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that neither Section 372 nor Section 379 deprived the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the application if the sum referred to in Section 379(1) had not been deposited. However, the court clarified that the Succession Certificate would not be issued to a successor unless the requisite court fees were paid on the allotted share.
CONCLUSION:
The recent judgment provides important insights into the interpretation of Section 379(1) of the Indian Succession Act. It clarifies that the deposit of court fees is not a mandatory requirement for the maintainability of an application for a Succession Certificate. However, it emphasizes the importance of paying the requisite fees before the issuance of the final Succession Certificate.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
