IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction Chamber Summons No.39 of 2007 in Petition No. 815 of 2006 Petition for probate of the last Will of Pushpa Ghanshamdas Tulsiani ..Deceased Shamsunder Lachmandas Sidhwani ..Petitioner Ms.B.P.Jakhade for petitioner CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 11th April, 2008 11th April, 2008 11th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Taxing Master has passed the order on 27th November, 2006 in this petition and the Taxing Master’s directions are that the daughter in law to the extent of her share in the property is not exempted from payment of Court fees. 2. This conclusion is assailed in the present chamber summons. The argument is that the notification which has been relied upon and more particularly dated 1st October, 1994 read with the explanation inserted therein on 23rd February, 2000 would exempt the petitioner from payment of Court fees. The petitioner is executor under the Will and beneficiary is the daughter in law. 3. After taking instructions from the daughter inlaw who is present in Court, Ms. Jakhade makes a statement that the court fees under the impugned order of the Taxing Master would be paid subject to the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court. She submits that the benefit of the notification can be extended to the daughter in law or not depending upon the relationship and more particularly matrimonial, is the issue pending consideration of the larger Bench of this Court and the decision is awaited. Subject to the said decision and reserving her rights to claim refund/appropriate adjustment of the quantum of the Court fees, the daughter inlaw would pay the amount as directed under the order of the Taxing Master. 4. In the light of this statement the issue raised in the chamber summons need not be gone into. Needless to state that depending upon the final decision of this Court on the reference, if pending, the Taxing Master’s order may be complied with and if this Court renders a decision which would cover the controversy raised in the present chamber summons, then, it would be open for the daughter in law to apply for appropriate relief including refund of the Court fees. Reserving that right and keeping open all contentions in that behalf chamber summons is disposed of. At the request of Mrs.Jakhade three months time is granted to pay the Court fees. 5. Ms.Jakhade states that vakalatnama would be filed within one week. No objection of the earlier Advocate has already been obtained. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)