# Shailendra Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2032
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 48 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailendra-jain-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54486
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

2032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession, is demolished. In view of the above facts, the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file
the instant suit and the plaintiff's suit is barred under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.

62. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court has not erred in allowing the defendants
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint. The appeal is meritless and is
liable to be dismissed.

63. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 in O.S. no.876 of 2021 is affirmed.

64. Office is directed to send back the trial court record, forthwith.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2032
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 48 of 2025

Shailendra Jain ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
Whether an applicant seeking grant of letters of administration under the Indian Succession Act,
1925 is required to pay the entire ad valorem court fee at the time of presentation of the petition
or only the fixed court fee prescribed under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
(ii) Whether the balance court fee payable under Article 11 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act,
1870 is required to be deposited only after the Court decides to grant letters of administration
and before their issuance?
(iii) Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the appellant's application seeking
permission to make good the deficiency of court fee after grant of letters of administration?

Headnotes
Court Fees Act, 1870 - Schedule I, Article 11 - Schedule II - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Ss.
278, 295 and 299 - Letters of administration - Court fee payable at the stage of institution -
Payment of ad valorem court fee - Stage at which payable.

HELD: A harmonious construction of Schedule II and Article 11 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870
makes it evident that an applicant seeking grant of letters of administration is required to pay only the fixed
court fee prescribed under Schedule II at the time of presentation of the petition. The ad valorem court fee
contemplated under Article 11 of Schedule I becomes payable only after the Court decides to grant letters of
administration and before the actual issuance thereof. Any interpretation requiring payment of the entire ad
valorem court fee at the initial stage would render Article 11 and the statutory scheme otiose. [Paras 10, 12
and 16]
4 All. Shailendra Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2033
Court Fees Act, 1870 - Schedule I, Article 11 - Schedule II - Letters of administration -
Deficiency of court fee - Application seeking permission to deposit balance court fee after grant
of letters of administration - Rejection by trial court - Legality.

HELD: The trial court committed an error in directing the appellant to deposit the entire deficient court fee
before adjudication of the petition seeking letters of administration. Since only a token court fee is payable at
the stage of institution and the balance court fee is required to be paid only after grant but before issuance of
letters of administration, the appellant's application seeking permission to make good the deficiency at that
stage deserved to be allowed. The impugned order rejecting the application was liable to be set aside. [Paras
16 to 18]

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Ss. 278 and 295 - Letters of administration - Contentious
proceedings - Authenticity of Will - Scope of appellate order.
HELD: The controversy before the appellate court was confined to the stage at which court fee was payable.
No opinion was expressed regarding the genuineness or authenticity of the unregistered Will forming the basis
of the petition. The trial court was directed to adjudicate the petition as a contentious cause under Section
295 of the Indian Succession Act after affording due opportunity to the parties and in accordance with law.
[Paras 17 to 19]

Letters of administration - Court fee - Grant of relief.

HELD: The appellant was entitled to deposit the deficient court fee after the petition for letters of
administration was allowed but before the actual issuance of the letters of administration. [Paras 17 and 18]

Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Application permitting payment of deficient court fee
after grant of letters of administration allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Km. Rakhi and Another v. First Additional District Judge, Firozabad and Others, 1999 SCC OnLine
All 723 - relied on; Dr. Pushpa Puri Memorial Charitable Trust, Mussoorie and Another v. 2nd
Additional District Judge, Dehradun and Another, AIR 2010 Uttarakhand 22 - relied on;
Prakashchandra Deokaranji Bhoot and Others v. Manoharlal Deokaranji Bhoot and Another, 2023
SCC OnLine Bom 1166 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Indian Succession Act, 1925; Court Fees Act, 1870.

List of Keywords
Letters of administration; Court fee; Deficient court fee; Ad valorem court fee; Unregistered Will; Harmonious
construction; Maintainability of petition.

Case Arising From
Order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit
No. 3 of 2023, Shailendra Jain v. State of U.P. and Others, whereby Application 39-A Kha seeking
permission to make good the deficiency of court fee after grant of letters of administration was rejected

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Rajnish Sahai Saxena, Ms. Shreya Gupta and Sri Vikas Mathur
For the Respondents: Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)
2034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, against the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar, in O.S. No.3 of 2023 (Shailendra Jain vs. State of U.P.
and others), whereby the appellant's application 39-A Kha has been rejected, whereby it was prayed
that the appellant be permitted to make good the deficiency of Court fees after the letters of
administration was granted in his favour.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner/appellant applied for grant of letters of
administration regarding the unregistered Will dated 16.4.2022, which was executed by his mother
Smt. Veer Bala Jain in favour of the appellant whereby all her movable and immovable assets were
bequeathed to the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that his father Jitendra Kumar Jain died
on 22.11.2004 and his mother Smt. Veer Bala Jain also died on 20.05.2022, as such, after her death
the above Will came into effect and for getting letters of administration, the appellant filed O.S.
No.3 of 2023 before the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which was later on transferred to
the Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar.

3. It is apparent that at the time of filing the above suit, the petitioner-appellant only paid
Court fees of Rs.25/-, whereas the valuation of the suit was Rs.15,00,000/-. A preliminary objection
was raised by the Munsarim that the Court fees paid by the petitioner-appellant was deficient by
Rs.1,12,882.50 and on this, the petitioner moved an application 39-C dated 13.10.2023 before the
trial court to permit him to make good the deficiency of Court fees after the petition seeking letters
of administration is allowed and not before the passing of the order of the court.

4. The above application of the petitioner was objected by the contesting respondent No.3
Smt. Shweta Jain on the ground that letters of administration has been sought regarding
unregistered Will dated 16.04.2022, which is doubtful, which has not been executed by Smt. Veer
Bala Jain, which has been challenged by her. It was further averred that a Court fees of
Rs.1,12,882.50 paise was required to be paid on it and as such, without paying this amount the
petition seeking letters of administration was not legally maintainable.

5. The trial court vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024 has concluded that as per report of
Munsarim dated 16.03.2023, there is a deficiency of Court fees of Rs.1,12,907.50 paise but the
petitioner has only paid Rs.25/-, as such, the deficiency of Court fees of Rs.1,12,882.50 paise
remains, which is required to be made good. The trial court considered the case law submitted by
the petitioner reported in AIR 2010 Uttarakhand 22, but still concluded that since the petition has
been converted into an original suit, being a contentious case, as such, the above precedent was not
applicable and the petitioner is required to pay ad-valorem Court fees under Section 7(iv-A) of the
Court Fees Act, which has not been paid by the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition. In the
light of this reasoning, the petitioner was directed to make good the deficiency of court fees of
Rs.1,12,882.50 paise, aggrieved against which the petitioner has filed this Appeal under Section
299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

6. Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of applying
for letters of administration, the petitioner is only required to pay the fixed Court fees of Rs.25/- as
per Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and only after the court comes to the conclusion that the
4 All. Shailendra Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2035
letters of administration is to be granted to the petitioner for a particular amount only then the petitioner is
required to pay Court fees on it in accordance with Article 11 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870. She
further submitted that there is similar provision also for grant of succession certificates under the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, where also the required Court fees is paid after the grant of succession certificate. She
further submitted that similar controversy was decided by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Dr.
Pushpa Puri Memorial Charitable Trust, Mussoorie and Another vs. 2nd Additional District Judge,
Dehradun and Another AIR 2010 UTTARAKHAND 22 , wherein it has been specifically held that the
complete Court fees has to be paid only at the time of grant of letters of administration or probate.

7. In the above facts, it was submitted that the trial court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application
39-A Kha and as such, the appeal be allowed and the petitioner-appellant be permitted to deposit the deficient
court fees at the time of grant of letter of administration in his favour.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 submitted that the order is perfectly
justified because the petitioner was required to pay the whole amount of Court fees of Rs.1,12,907.50 paise,
which has not been paid by the petitioner, as such, the letters of administration cannot be granted in his
favour. Learned Counsel further submitted that the letters of administration cannot be granted to the
petitioner on the basis of unregistered Will, which is a forged and fabricated document. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and documents
submitted with the appeal. The appeal is admitted.

10. A very short question arises in this appeal whether the petitioner is required to deposit the entire
amount of Court fees at the time of applying for letters of administration under Section 276 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 or he can apply for it with a Court fees of Rs.25/- in accordance with Schedule II of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 and later on make good the deficiency in accordance with Article 11 of Schedule I of
the Court Fees Act, 1870, at the time of grant of letter of administration or probate.

11. It is apparent from the facts of this case that the petitioner is seeking letters of administration under
Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 regarding the unregistered Will dated 16.04.2022 of his late
mother Smt. Veer Bala Jain, who has died on 20.05.2022.

12. It is also apparent that the petitioner has only paid a fixed Court fees of Rs.25/- under Schedule II of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 and it is also apparent that Article 11 of Schedule I of the above Act prescribes the
Court fees which is to be paid on a petition seeking letters of administration. If the above two provisions are
reconciled then it is apparent that the Court fees prescribed under Schedule II is only a token amount whereas
the full Court fees has been prescribed under Article 11 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. If the Court fees
of Rs.25/- was sufficient then there was no need for the Legislature to enact Article 11 of Schedule I of the
Act. It is well settled that all the provisions of the statute are to be harmoniously construed and an
interpretation, which renders any provision otiose is to be avoided. In view of this legal principle, it is
apparent that at the time of applying for the letters of administration, only a token amount of
Rs.25/- is to be paid in accordance with Schedule II of the Act, 1870 and the remaining amount is
to be paid under Article 11 of Schedule I, at the time of grant of letter of administration or probate.
2036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. This Court in the case of Km. Rakhi and Another vs. First Additional District Judge, Firozabad
and others 1999 SCC OnLine All 723, has held that on petition filed under Section 379 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925, for issuance of succession certificate, it is not necessary for the petitioner to pay the
entire Court fees, except the Court fees of Rs.25/-, while filing the application for succession certificate. It
has been further held that complete Court fees has to be paid after the application for succession certificate
is allowed.

14. The Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Dr. Pushpa Puri Memorial Charitable Trust (supra),
has also held that in a petition filed under Section 276 for grant of letters of administration under Indian
Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner need not deposit the entire amount of Court fees at the time of filing
of the petition and he is only required to pay court fees of Rs.25/- as per Schedule II of Court Fees Act,
1870 and only when the letters of administration are issued, he is required to pay complete court fees.

15. The High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakashchandra Deokaranji Bhoot and Others vs.
Manoharlal Deokaranji Bhoot and Another 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1166, while considering court fees
payable on application for grant of Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, held as
under:-

"14. A reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 379 suggests that every application for a certificate
shall be accompanied, not by court-fees, but by a sum equal to such court-fee as may be payable in respect
of a Succession Certificate. Sub-Section (1) of Section 379 of the Act, does not prescribed the consequence
of non-deposit of the sum referred to therein, when not accompanying the application.

15. It is thus clear that the provision of Section 379 do not prescribed for the payment of
requisite court-fee along with the application but prescribe the deposit of a sum of money in the Court,
which would be ultimately expended, under orders of the Court, towards purchase of stamp to be used for
denoting the fee payable on the value of each of the shares of the successors. In the event of the Court
deciding not to allot any share or to dismiss the application, the parties who has deposited such sum
would be entitled to a refund of the same in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 379. The scheme of Section
379 itself denotes that the sum to be deposited is not actual court-fee under the Court Fees Act but an
amount which may be expended or refunded, at the time of final orders to be passed on the application. It
would stand to reason therefore, that the provision of Section 379 could not be mandatory and require
such a sum or fee to be deposited as a sine qua non for the maintainability of an application under Section
372 of the Act.

16. Looked at from a different angle, neither the provision of Section 372 nor those of Section
379 in any manner lay down that a Court dealing with such an application would lack jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter in the absence of the sum required to be deposited under Sub-section (1) of
Section 379. The jurisdiction of the Court to proceed to hear an application for issuance of a Succession
Certificate would not depend upon whether the sums specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 379 has
been deposited or not; however, a combined reading of Sub-section (1) & (3) of Section 379 of the Act,
would suggest that the Court would not issue a Succession Certificate on the culmination of the
proceedings, to a party declared as a successor or having a share in the estate, unless the requisite courtfees payable on such share is paid before issuance of such a certificate.

********
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2037

20. Considering the provisions of Section 372 read with Section 379 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, in answer to the questions formulated in para 3 above, I am of the view, for the reasons
discussed, that the deposit of the sum to be expended on the fee referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section
379 is not mandatory, and non-deposit of the same along with the filing of the application that issuance of
Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Act, does not affect the maintainability of the application
or of the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed to deciding the application..."

16. It is apparent that a token amount of Rs.25/- is to be paid at the time of moving application
seeking letters of administration under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and only when the court
allows that application then the petitioner is required to deposit the complete Court fees, for the actual
issuance of the letter of administration. It is apparent that the petitioner is not supposed to deposit the
complete fee at the time of moving the above petition seeking grant of letters of administration.

17. In view of the above facts and law, the impugned order passed by the trial court is certainly
erroneous and is liable to be set aside, which has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire Court fees on
the petition seeking letters of administration prior to grant and issuance of certificate to the petitioner. This
appeal has merit and is liable to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
30.07.2024 is set aside and the petitioner's application 39-A Kha stands allowed and the petitioner is
permitted to make good the deficiency of court fees after grant but before the issuance of letters of
administration.

19. This court has not expressed any opinion as to the genuineness and authenticity of the Will dated
16.04.2022 executed by late Smt. Veer Bala Jain. The trial court is directed to decide the petition seeking
letters of administration as a contentious case under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, after
giving due opportunity to the opposite parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order, without affording unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties, in accordance with law.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2037
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 273 of 2026

Mr. Puneet Sachdeva ...Appellant
Versus
IndusInd Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration