IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2125 of 2006 AJIT KUMAR SHUKLA, SON OF SRI JITENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PAKHRA, P.S. HAZIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT-VAISHALI AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.266 E ‘SHIVAM’ MOHALLA-PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.O. & P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………………INTERVENOR (OBJECTOR)…..PETITIONER. Versus 1. MOHINI DEVI SHUKLA, WIFE OF LATE BHUPENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KANHAULI, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA-POKHARA, SHUKLA BHAWAN, GUDARI ROAD, P.O. & P.S. HAZIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT- VAISHALI…………APPLICANT………OPPOSITE PARTY. 2. BIJENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA. 3. BIMLENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA. BOTH SONS OF LATE SATENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O. KANHAULI, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI AND PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-POKHARA, GUDARI ROAD, P.O. & P.S. HAZIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. …………………OPPOSITE PARTIES….OPPOSITE PARTIES. 4. MADANENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA. 5. JITENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA. 6. BOTH SONS OF LATE NRIPENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA AND RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-POKHRA, P.O. & P.S. HAZIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT-VAISHALI AND O.P. NO.5 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.266 E ‘SHIVAM’ MOHALLA- PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.O. & P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. …….INTERVENORS(OBJECTORS)…………OPP.PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Pandit Jee Pandey and Navnit Kumar Tiwari, Advocates. ------------ 4. 8.10.2009. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 8.8.2006 passed in Succession Case No.7/03 by the District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby the petitioner, the applicant therein, could not deposit the entire court fee amount at the filing of - 2 - Succession Case No.7 of 2003 and had been allowed to deposit the remaining court fee before the issuance of grant of Succession Certificate and Succession Case had been admitted for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the provisions under Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, it is mandatory upon the parties seeking Succession Certificate to deposit the entire court fee at the time of filing of Succession Case. It is submitted that if the amount is not paid prior to the adjudication of the matter, the Succession Case is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Lakshmi Prasad Vs. Badri Ram, reported in 1984 PLJR 930. He has specifically relied upon paragraph 6 of the aforesaid decision and submits that it is apparent therefrom that prior to adjudication, the court fee amount has to be deposited. Before the court below, reliance was placed upon the decisions of Allahabad High Court rendered in Km. Rakhi and another Vs. Additional District Judge, Firozabad and others, reported in AIR 2000 166 as well as the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Smt. Usha and others Vs. State, reported in AIR 1993 Madhya Pradesh 41. In both cases, it has been held that the provision of depositing court fee accompanying the application for Succession Certificate is not mandatory and it does not constitute any condition precedent to be satisfied for the application to be entertained and tried. - 3 - In the case of Lakshmi Prasad (Supra), the Division Bench has held that in probate case, court fee is to be collected at a point of time anterior to grant of probate. In paragraph-6 of the said judgment, it has been discussed, while relying upon the earlier decision of this Court, that what is charged is neither the application for probate nor the order entitling the petitioner to grant of probate but the probate itself. However, as ad valorem court fee on the value of property has to be paid, the payment must be made in the case of a dispute with regard to the valuation of the property between the Collector and the applicant for probate or letters of administration, as soon as the question of valuation has been decided by the Court. In my view, this decision is of no help the petitioner. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 8.8.2006. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)