[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Chandana Anil Salgaocar vs Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar And Anr on 28 May, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:901 AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
2025:BHC-GOA:901
Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28/2019
1. MRS. LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR
Widow of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, presently residing at F-Block,
401-501, Cabo at Landscape Town, Near
Odxel Village, After Goa International
Centre, Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004,
hrough POA Mr Arjun Anil Salgaocar
2. MR ARJUN ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, R/o F-Block, Flat No.402-502,
Cabo at Landscape Town, Near Odxel
Village, After Goa International Centre,
Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004. ... APPELLANTS
Versus
1. MRS CHANDANA ANIL
SALGAOCAR, Daughter of Late
Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o Flat No.33,
Jolly Maker Apt No.III Cufe
Parade, Mumbai 400005.
2. MR SAMEER ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o House No.4311, Gogol,
Fatorda, Margao, Goa 403602.
3. MS. PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR,
Daughter of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva
Salgaocar Major of age, R/o 212 Maker
Tower B, Cufe Parade, Mumbai - 400005. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms Gautami Kamat,
Advocate for the Appellants.
Respondent No.1 in person.
Mr F. E. Noronha with Mr Rahul Kamat, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
Mr Gustavo Monteiro, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Page 1 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
WITH
CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.9/2019
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28/2019
CHANDANA ANIL SALGAOCAR
33, Jolly Maker Apt No.III Cufe
Parade, Mumbai 400005. ... CROSS-OBJECTOR
IN
1. MRS. LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR
Widow of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, presently residing at F-Block,
401-501, Cabo at Landscape Town,
Near Odxel Village, After Goa International
Centre, Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004,
hrough POA Mr Arjun Anil Salgaocar
2. MR ARJUN ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, R/o F-Block, Flat No.402-502,
Cabo at Landscape Town, Near Odxel
Village, After Goa International Centre,
Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004. ... APPELLANTS
Versus
1. MRS CHANDANA ANIL SALGAOCAR,
Daughter of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o Flat No.33,
Jolly Maker Apt No.III Cufe
Parade, Mumbai 400005.
2. MR SAMEER ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o House No.4311,
Gogol, Fatorda, Margao, Goa 403602.
3. MS. PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR,
Daughter of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o 212 Maker
Tower B, Cufe Parade, Mumbai - 400005. ... RESPONDENTS
Cross-Objector in person.
Mr Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms Gautami Kamat,
Advocate for the Appellants.
Page 2 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
Respondent No.1 in person.
Mr F. E. Noronha with Mr Rahul Kamat, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
Mr Gustavo Monteiro, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.7/2025
MRS. LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR
Widow of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, presently residing at F-Block,
401-501, Cabo at Landscape Town,
Near Odxel Village, After Goa International
Centre, Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004,
hrough POA Mr Arjun Anil Salgaocar ... APPELLANT
Versus
1. MRS CHANDANA ANIL SALGAOCAR,
Daughter of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o Flat No.33,
Jolly Maker Apt No.III Cufe
Parade, Mumbai 400005.
2. MR SAMEER ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o House No.4311,
Gogol, Fatorda, Margao, Goa 403602.
3. MS. PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR,
Daughter of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar
Major of age, R/o 212 Maker
Tower B, Cufe Parade, Mumbai - 400005.
4. MR ARJUN ANIL SALGAOCAR
Son of Late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar,
Major of age, R/o F-Block, Flat No.402-502,
Cabo at Landscape Town, Near Odxel
Village, After Goa International Centre,
Dona Paula, Panaji - 403004. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms Gautami Kamat,
Advocate for the Appellants.
Respondent No.1 in person.
Mr F. E. Noronha with Mr Rahul Kamat, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
Page 3 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on - 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
Mr Gustavo Monteiro, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Reserved on: 6th MAY 2025
Pronounced on: 28th MAY 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By
consent of all the parties to the above appeals/cross objections, all
these appeals/cross objections are disposed of by this common
judgment, at the stage of admission. he above appeals/cross
objection arise from an Order dated 03.07.2018, Order dated
26.02.2019 and from an Order dated 03.02.2024 passed in
Inventory Proceeding No.78/2016/B before the Court of the
Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji.
2. he facts required to be considered to decide the present
appeals/cross objection are as under:-
(a) he estate leaver Anil Vasudeva Salgaocar expired on
01.01.2016 in Singapore, leaving as his moiety holder, his widow
Mrs Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (appellant no.1 in Appeal From
Order No.28/2019) and four children as heirs to the estate; the
four children are Mr Sameer Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.2 in
AO 28/2019), Ms Chandana Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.1 in
AO 28/2019 and Cross-Objector in AO 28/2019), Ms Purnima
Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.3 in AO 28/2019) and Mr Arjun
Anil Salgaocar (originally respondent no.4, later transposed as
appellant no.2 as attorney of appellant no.1, in AO 28/2019).
Page 4 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
For brevity, the parties shall be referred to by their irst name in
this judgment.
It is not in dispute that Anil was married to Lakshmi at
Goa, with their marriage being registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 (Code) and are
governed inter se by the provisions of that Code. It is also not in
dispute that Anil, by virtue of his birth in Goa, was governed by
the Code, and his estate, which consists of properties/assets, in
the State of Goa, in other States in India and overseas would be
governed by the provisions of the Code.
(b) It is also not in dispute that Chandana iled on 30.06.2016
a Case seeking Letters Of Administration to distribute the estate
of late Anil which was numbered as Case No.HCF/S1/2017
before the Family Justice Courts in the Republic of Singapore.
Initially, Chandana sought to be appointed as Administratrix but
subsequently withdrew her application, and in that proceeding,
Anil’s wife Lakshmi was granted Letters of Administration and
was appointed Administratrix by the Family Justice Courts in the
Republic of Singapore on 03.07.2017.
(c) In the meanwhile, Chandana also iled on 28.07.2016 an
Inventory Proceeding bearing No.78/2016/B before the Court of
the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji seeking distribution of
the estate of late Anil Salgaocar. In the Inventory Proceeding,
since Lakshmi, was the spouse and moiety holder of Anil, she was
appointed as Head of the Family on 20.10.2016. On
06.05.2017, Lakshmi, as Head of the Family iled a Declaration
Page 5 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
on Oath before the Inventory Court. his was in compliance
with the provisions of Section 376 of the Goa Succession, Special
Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (Goa Succession
Act). However, the Head of the Family has not iled any Initial
List of Assets in terms of Section 399 of the Goa Succession Act
till date.
(d) On 15.02.2018, the Head of Family, Lakshmi, iled an
application to stay the inventory proceedings which is at Exh.D-
33 of the ile of the Inventory Court; this application claimed
that the Singapore Court, by its order of 03.07.2017 had
appointed Lakshmi as the Administratrix and granted her Letters
of Administration of the estate of late Anil. he application
further states that the Singapore Court had dismissed Chandana’s
application for appointment as Administratrix after she withdrew
the same and in September 2017, Lakshmi was granted the
Letters of Administration, pursuant to which she initiated the
process of ascertaining complete details of the estate of Anil
situated outside India, which were under litigation. he
application states that all these proceedings were within the
knowledge of Chandana.
he application for stay of the inventory proceedings
further states that Anil was governed by the Code of 1867, being
born in Goa and according to the principle of Unity of
Inheritance under that Code, the entire estate of Anil should be
dealt with, in its inal division at one place. Lakshmi further
stated that without collating all the assets outside the State of
Goa, an inventory proceeding, overlooking such assets would
Page 6 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
sufer from serious inirmity and would be incapable of
rectiication at a later date. She further stated that in view of her
being in the process of collating these assets, the inventory
proceedings be stayed sine die with liberty approach the
Inventory Court after having enlisted and identiied all assets
located outside the State of Goa.
(e) he application for stay of the inventory proceeding was
opposed by Chandana through a reply dated 05.04.2018, in
which the following averments are made:-
(i) he application is not maintainable, both, under the
Code nor under the Goa Succession Act;
(ii) he application has been iled as a dilatory tactic to
delay the expeditious disposal of the proceedings; that
prior to this application, vide order dated 20.10.2016
Lakshmi was directed by the Court to ile her Statement on
Oath which she failed to do, pursuant to which Chandana
was compelled to ile application at Exh.25 for her removal
as Head of Family. he Court, by its order of 04.05.2017
directed Lakshmi, as a last chance to ile the Statement on
Oath, failing which application at Exh.25 would be deemed
to have been granted. he Statement on Oath was iled on
06.05.2017;
hat thereafter Lakshmi had also not complied with
an order of 06.05.2017 whereby she was directed to publish
a notice to unknown legatees. hat Lakshmi had also not
Page 7 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
iled the List of Assets in compliance with the mandate of
legal obligations cast upon her as Head of the Family;
(iii) hat since Lakshmi has also been appointed as
Administratrix by the Singapore Court, the assets located in
Singapore are being administered according to Singapore
Law, and has iled a Statement of Oath and a Statement of
Assets as per Singapore Law; hat both proceedings, in
Goa and Singapore are proceeding simultaneously;
(iv) hat Anil was governed by the Code and by the Goa
Succession Act and the Inventory Court has jurisdiction to
open succession as he had immovable and movable
properties in and outside Goa; that Anil is also governed by
Singapore Law as he was domiciled in Singapore.
(f ) A rejoinder was iled by Lakshmi on 03.05.2018 wherein
she denies that the deceased Anil was governed by Singapore Law.
She states that the estate of Anil has to be partitioned under a
single law. She states that since deceased Anil was a Goan, all his
estate, wherever it be situated, is required to be dealt with by the
law applicable to Goa under the concept of Unity of Inheritance.
(g) he Inventory Court, by the impugned order dated
03.07.2018 dismissed the application at Exh.D-33 iled by
Lakshmi for stay of the inventory proceeding, and directed
Lakshmi to ile the List of Assets within thirty days of passing of
the order.
Page 8 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
(h) Lakshmi then iled an application for review/
reconsideration of the order of 03.07.2018, at Exh.D-40 of the
record of the Inventory Court. his application was iled, inter
alia, on the following grounds:-
(i) hat the Court held that deceased Anil was governed
by the Code of 1867, being of Goan origin, but,
inconsistent with this inding, has also held that the Estate
situated at Singapore cannot be administered in accordance
with the law applicable to the State of Goa; hat this
inding is contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the Goa
Act, 2012, which embodies the principle of Universality of
Succession.
(ii) hat there are two simultaneous succession
proceedings going on before two diferent fora, one in Goa,
and the other in Singapore is an error on the face of the
record. he main contention of the review applicant for
staying the proceeding was that it was not possible, in view
of the proceedings in Singapore, to give a deinite List of
Assets, in compliance with the provisions of the Goa
Succession Act, 2012.
(iii) hat the consequence of giving a fraudulent
description of an asset or fraudulently concealing of an
asset/liability or document in terms of Sections 256 to 258
r/w. Sections 380 to 382 of the Goa Succession Act as
directed by the order of 03.07.2018 will render the reviewPage 9 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCapplicant to sufer damages, injury and penalty which could
be imposed in accordance with these provisions.
(iv) hat according to the Goan law as also Singapore law,
there can only be one succession of a deceased person,
based upon his origin and domicile, and there cannot be
two simultaneous succession proceedings before two
diferent fora in diferent jurisdictions; hat the inventory
proceeding is the only proceeding for succession of the
estate of late Anil, wherever the properties in his estate may
be situated, in India or overseas, and the entire estate,
irrespective of where it is situated, would have to be
distributed in that proceeding.
(i) A reply came to be iled by Chandana on 27.08.2018,
opposing the application for review mainly on the following
grounds:-
(i) he application was not maintainable for reasons that
the power of review under the Goa Succession Act is on
speciic grounds stated in Section 448, which were not
available to the applicant; Section 458 of the Goa
Succession Act having speciically barred the applicability of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to Inventory
Proceedings, the power of review under CPC was also not
conferred upon Inventory Court for it to exercise review
jurisdiction on grounds stated in the Civil Procedure Code.
Page 10 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
(ii) hat an application for review is not an appeal in
disguise. hat the application for review contains deliberate
and misleading submissions regarding applicability of the
law; According to the submission of Chandana, in her
reply, Universality of Succession applies to assets in India
alone, more so since Lakshmi has been appointed as
Administratrix in parallel proceedings pending for the
administration of the assets of the deceased Anil, in
Singapore.
(j) he Inventory Court dismissed the application for review
by impugned order dated 26.02.2019. Whilst dismissing the
application, the Inventory Court felt that it had the power of
review under Section 448 of the Goa Succession Act but however
declined to review its order on grounds that there was no error
apparent and that the Court had rightly held that the Inventory
Court cannot adjudicate any dispute relating to the assets of the
deceased Anil, situated in Singapore, in view of the grant of
Letters of Administration by the Singapore Law, in favour of the
Head of the Family Lakshmi.
(k) After Appeal from Order No.28/2019 with Civil
Application No.86/2019 was iled before this Court, this Court,
by its order of 29.03.2019 granted a stay of the operation of
impugned orders dated 03.07.2018 and 26.02.2019 and stayed
further proceedings before the Inventory Court.
(l) Chandana iled Cross-Objections to Appeal from order
No.28/2019 before this Court on 27.06.2019 in which she
Page 11 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
challenged the review order of the Inventory Court dated
26.02.2019, inter alia, on the ground that the application for
review was not maintainable under the Goa Succession Act in
terms of Section 448 thereof; She contended that the power of
review was not an inherent power, and the same not having been
conferred by the Goa Succession Act, which does not extend the
power of review under Section 114 CPC to an Inventory Court,
the order of 27.06.2019 was required to be set aside on that
ground alone.
(m) Chandana simultaneously iled on 27.06.2019, an aidavit
in reply in Appeal from Order No.28/2019 opposing the appeal,
inter alia, based on the following contentions:-
(i) hat Lakshmi had been granted Letters of
Administration pursuant to an application made by her
before the competent Court in Singapore and that she had
iled an oath to administer the estate and account for the
same, which statutorily bound her to administer the estate
of Anil in Singapore under the provisions of the Singapore
Law. hat the overseas estate consists of shares in companies
and bank accounts, which are well within the knowledge of
Lakshmi.
(ii) hat she (Chandana) is unaware of the status of the
ongoing litigations overseas, with the exception of those
foreign judgments and orders involving Lakshmi as
Administratrix of the estate of the estate leaver rendered byPage 12 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCthe Singapore and British Virgin Island Courts and which
are available on the internet.
(iii) hat that Appellants have no intentions of settling the
matter considering that when the matter was referred for
mediation, Arjun (Appellant No. 2) iled an application for
stay of the mediation proceedings. Chandana further denies
to have entered into mediation and settled the matter in
Singapore or having pressured Lakshmi to accept terms and
conditions put forth by her.
(iv) hat the pendency of the proceedings before the
Singapore Court hold no bearing on the inventory
proceedings in Goa considering that the proceedings in
Singapore are governed by the provisions of Singapore Law.
(v) hat Goa succession Act does not extend to the overseas
estate of the estate-leaver. hat the principle of unity of
inheritance under Section 8(3) of the Goa Succession Act
has to be read with Section 1(2) of the Goa Succession Act
which provides that the Act shall extend to the whole State
of Goa, and cannot, in any event, extend to the overseas
estate of the estate-leaver which is governed by foreign
jurisdictions.
(n) While Appeal from order No.28/2019 was pending before
this Court, Purnima respondent no.3 in AO No.28/2019 (and
appellant in AO No.7/2025) iled an application dated
14.10.2023, which is Exh.D-45 before the Inventory Court,Page 13 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCseeking a direction to the Head of Family Lakshmi, to comply
with order dated 03.07.2018. his application was based upon
the submission that the Supreme Court, in Asian Resurfacing of
Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Central Bank of Investigation –
(2018) 16 SCC 299 had directed that any stay granted by a
higher court for proceeding of a lower court, would end on expiry
of six months from the date of such order, unless similar
extension was granted by speaking order. According to Purnima,
the order granting stay of the proceedings, of this Court dated
29.03.2019 stood expired, in view of the direction of the
Supreme Court by 28.09.2019, as no extension was sought before
this Court, hence directions were sought from the Inventory
Court to compel Lakshmi to ile a List of Assets of the estate of
Anil.
Lakshmi opposed the application, which was however
granted by the Inventory Court on 03.02.2024 holding that the
order of stay of the proceedings by this Court on 01.04.2019,
stood automatically vacated in terms of the Judgment in Asian
Resurfacing (supra).
(o) he order dated 03.02.2024 of the Inventory Court, which
in terms contemplated continuation of the inventory proceedings,
on the assumption that the stay order of this Court stood
automatically vacated, was challenged by Lakshmi in AO
No.7/2025. he main ground for challenge in that appeal is that
the view taken by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing
(supra), having been referred to a Larger Bench, was held to be a
Page 14 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
wrong view in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v/s. State
of U.P. – (2024) 6 SCC 267.
SUBMISSIONS:
In addition to the oral submissions of the parties, written
submissions also came to be iled.
3. Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellants has advanced the following submissions:
(i) In AO No.7/2025, it was submitted that in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in a Reference of the view taken
in Asian Resurfacing (supra), a Larger Bench of the Supreme
Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) held that
the earlier view was incorrect, the application at Exh.D-45 for
considering the interim order of stay to be vacated, was contrary
to this Judgment. It was submitted that the said order is therefore
to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) hat the Inventory Court ought to have restricted itself,
while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 to the
grounds stated in the application at Exh.D-33 for seeking a stay
of the inventory proceeding. Instead of restricting itself to
whether grounds under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil
Procedure Code for stay of the inventory proceedings had been
made out, the Inventory Court has embarked on giving indings
that the estate of deceased Anil situated at Singapore cannot be
administered in accordance with the law applicable to the State of
Goa, and vice versa. He further submits that once the Court had
Page 15 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCconcluded that late Anil was governed by the Civil Code of 1867,
the concept of the Unity of Estate would necessitate that all his
assets and liabilities, wherever they be, including those outside
India, would be liable for allotment under the inventory
proceeding. He submits that the Court has committed an error
in holding that grounds, as stated in the application, had not
been made out for stay of the inventory proceeding; It is his
submission that Lakshmi had clearly stated in her application that
she was in the process of ascertaining complete details of the
estate of late Anil, which were under various litigations and
disputed trust assets, before various fora. hese disputed assets
and litigations, would directly afect the outcome of the inventory
proceeding, and for that reason a case had been made out for stay
of the inventory proceeding until some clarity could be arrived at
in the various litigations and disputes.
(iii) It was further submitted that the Head of the Family being
still in the process of collating information and details of the
assets, liabilities and litigations in Singapore and elsewhere, if she
were to ile a truncated list of assets before the Inventory Court
which might lack in details as are required by Section 379 r/w.
Section 399 of the Goa Succession Act, there is every possibility
of the other heirs may allege as provided in Section 380 of this
Act that assets forming part of the inheritance may have been left
out or concealed; he Head of Family therefore apprehends that
on this basis, under Section 381 of that Act, the consequence of
concealing may result in forfeiture of the right to such assets or
render the Head of Family liable for damages. his, according to
the applicant is a justiication for staying the inventory
Page 16 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
proceedings until all assets and liabilities of the estate of late Anil
are discovered or determined.
4. Chandana – Respondent No.1 made the following
submissions in support of her case:
(i) hat for this Court to arrive at a inding that there exists a
justiiable reason to stay the Inventory Proceedings, it is necessary
for the Petitioner to state the nature of such pending proceedings
and the manner in which the same is prejudicial to the inventory
proceedings.
(ii) hat about nine years have elapsed since the iling of the
present inventory proceedings on 28.07.2016; Lakshmi has not
iled the statement of assets/liabilities of the estate leaver inspite of
being aware of the particulars of such assets, given that she has
been representing in and defending litigations on behalf of the
‘Estate of Late A V Salgaocar’. It is a prerequisite for the Cabesa
de Casal to ile a statement of assets while presenting an inventory
application under Section 375(vii) of the Goa Succession Act. he
Cabesa de Casal is further to mandatorily ile accounts of the
assets annually under Section 379 of the Goa Succession Act.
(iv) Assuming that the ‘prejudicial case’ refers to the
proceedings in Suit No. 821 of 2015 initiated by the estate leaver
before the Singapore High Court against one Darsan Jhaveri,
Chandana submits that the same was decreed by the Singapore
High Court by a judgment and order dated 28.02.2023,
declaring that Darsan Jhaveri along with defendant nos. 4 to 14Page 17 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCtherein hold trust assets (deined in para 253 of the said judgment
as shares in ten companies in the British Virgin Islands and
Singapore) on trust for the estate leaver. hat Defendant No. 1
therein had iled Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2023, which was
dismissed on 24.06.2024 and that Lakshmi has iled execution
proceedings in Singapore.
(v) hat considering that there are no proceedings, prejudicial
or otherwise, pending in Singapore, the stay be vacated and the
Cabesa de Casal be directed to ile the statement of assets before
the Inventory Court.
(vi) On the Cross-Objections in challenge to the review order,
she has submitted that the Inventory Court has no power to
review its order in terms of the provisions of the CPC, they
having not been speciically conferred upon under the Goa
Succession Act. She further submits that there was no case made
out for review of the impugned order in terms of Section 448 of
the Goa Succession Act. She relies upon the following case law to
contend that the review application ought to have been dismissed
as not maintainable:
a) Ramlal & Ors. v/s. Rewa Coalields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
361.
b) Ram Rup Agrahri & Ors. v/s. Naik Ram, AIR 1926 All
252.
c) Sheshiri Narayan Kamat & Ors. v/s. Venkatesh Laxman
Kamat & Ors., AIR 1927 Bom 221.
d) Pundlik v/s. Achut, 1893 ILR, Volume XVII, Pg.No.
84.
Page 18 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
e) Ashanulla v/s. he Collector of Dacca & Ors., 1888 ILR
15 Cal. 242.
f ) Patel Narshi hakershi v/s. Pradymansinghji Arjnsinghji,
AIR 1970 SC 1273 (Pr 4).
g) Kalabharati Advertising v/s. Hemant Vimalnath
Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437.
h) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v/s. N. Raju
Reddiar & Anr., (1997) 9 SC 736.
5. Shri F. E. Noronha, learned advocate representing
Respondent No. 2 submitted as under:
(i) hat the Singapore Law mandates settling the liabilities before
initiating distribution of assets. Consequently, Lakshmi is in the
process of settling and clearing the liabilities of the estate leaver at
Singapore.
(ii) he Letters of Administration have been granted to
Lakshmi by the Singapore Court. It is claimed that in Singapore,
at the instance of the Judge, the parties mediated and settled the
matter as per the terms and conditions put forth by Chandana,
which Lakshmi was pressurized to accept so that the proceedings
at Singapore could continue to inality and the proceedings at
Goa could be continued.
(iii) hat the inventory proceeding initiated before the
Inventory Court in Goa is subject to the outcome of the
proceedings before the Singapore Court, based on the Principal of
Unity of Inheritance or Principal of Universality under Section 8
of the Goa Succession Act.
Page 19 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
(iv) hat the Inventory Proceedings No. 78/2016/B are the only
proceedings initiated for Inventorying and Partitioning of the
estate, therefore the outcome of the overseas proceedings would
have to be taken into consideration in the said inventory
proceedings.
(v) Shri F. E. Noronha, advocate for respondent no.2 has relied
upon the following judgements/commentary:
a) Prof. Jose Alberto Dos Reis, Comentario ao Codigo
Processo Civil, Vol. 3, Pg. 277- Commentary to Article
284 of Portuguese Civil Procedure Code.
b) Boletim do Ministerio Da Justica, No. 36- May-1953.
c) No. 16, January 1950, Boletim Do Ministerio Da
Ivstica.
d) No. 6, May 1948, Boletim Do Ministerio Da Ivstica.
e) Jose Paulo Coutinho v/s. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira
& Anr. – (2019) 20 SCC 85
On similar lines, Advocate Gustavo Monteiro appearing for
respondent no.3 supports the contention that the principle of
Unity of Inheritance under Section 8 of the Goa Succession Act
would require that all assets including those which are overseas are
to be enlisted including the liabilities; He however submits that
the application for stay of the inventory proceedings only states
that the estate is embroiled in litigation, but the Head of Family
has not furnished any list of pending litigations or the amounts
being claimed in such litigations. In other words, the main
Page 20 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
submission is that the application does not contain suicient
pleadings to substantiate the invocation of powers under Article
248 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Before deciding the controversy in AO No.28/2019 and
Cross-Objections No.9/2019, I will deal with the challenge
thrown in AO No.7/2025 to Order dated 03.02.2024,
considering the stay order of this Court to have been vacated and
the Inventory Court to proceed with the case. As on the date the
impugned order dated 03.02.2024 is passed, the Supreme Court,
Asian Resurfacing (supra) had held as under:-
“35. In cases where stay is granted in future, the
same will end on expiry of six months from the
date of such order unless similar extension is
granted by a speaking order. he speaking order
must show that the case was of such exceptional
nature that continuing the stay was more
important than having the trial inalized. he
trial Court where order of stay of civil or
criminal proceedings is produced, may ix a date
not beyond six months of the order of stay so
that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can
commence unless order of extension of stay is
produced.
36. In view of the above, situation of
proceedings remaining pending for long on
account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is
required not only for corruption cases but for all
civil and criminal cases where on account of
stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up.
At times. proceedings are adjourned sine die on
account of stay. Even after stay is vacated,
Page 21 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCintimation is not received and proceedings are
not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this
situation, we consider it appropriate to direct
that in all pending cases where stay against
proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is
operating, the same will come to an end on
expiry of six months from today unless in an
exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is
extended. In cases where stay is granted in
future, the same will end on expiry of six
months from the date of such order unless
similar extension is granted by a speaking order.
he speaking order must show that the case was
of such exceptional nature that continuing the
stay was more important than having the trial
inalised. he trial court where order of stay of
civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may
ix a date not beyond six months of the order of
stay so that on expiry of period of stay.
proceedings can commence unless order of
extension of stay is produced.
37. hus, we declare the law to be that order
framing charge is not purely an interlocutory
order nor a inal order. Jurisdiction of the High
Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a
petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 CrPC
or Article 227 of the Constitution. However,
the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent
with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious
disposal of a trial without the same being in any
manner hampered. hus considered, the
challenge to an order of charge should be
entertained in a rarest of rare case only to
correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to
reappreciate the matter. Even where such
challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the
Page 22 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCmatter must be decided on day-to-day basis so
that stay does not operate for an unduly long
period. hough no mandatory time-limit may
be ixed, the decision may not exceed two-three
months normally. If it remains pending longer,
duration of stay should not exceed six months,
unless extension is granted by a speciic speaking
order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy
justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as
other cases where at trial stage proceedings are
stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court
or a court below the High Court, as the case
may be. In all pending matters before the High
Courts or other courts relating to the PC Act or
all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of
proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay
will automatically lapse after six months from
today unless extended by a speaking order on
the above parameters. Same course may also be
adopted by civil and criminal appellate/
Revisional Courts under the jurisdiction of the
High Courts. he trial courts may, on expiry of
the above period, resume the proceedings
without waiting for any other intimation unless
express order extending stay is produced.”
7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad (supra), on an order of Reference made to
a Larger Bench decided the correctness of the view taken in
paragraphs 36 and 37 of Asian Resurfacing (supra) and has held
as under:
“46. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench
which decided the case, we are unable to concur
with the directions issued in paras 36 and 37 ofPage 23 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCthe decision in Asian Resurfacing. We hold that
there cannot be automatic vacation of stay
granted by the High Court. We do not approve
the direction issued to decide all the cases in
which an interim stay has been granted on a
day-to-day basis within a time-frame. We hold
that such blanket directions cannot be issued in
the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India. We answer both
the questions framed in para 7 above in the
negative.”
8. he Judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
(supra), was rendered on 29.02.2024 a few days after the
Inventory Court, relying upon Asian Resurfacing (supra) held
that this Court’s order of stay of the inventory proceeding dated
29.03.2019 stood vacated. It is trite law that a declaration of
what is the state of a law by the Supreme Court would always
relate back. In view of the observations made by the Supreme
Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 of High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad (supra), the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 would
necessarily have to be quashed and set aside. he position of law,
as declared by the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad (supra), would be that all orders of stay of proceedings
or any other judgment or order would continue, in ordinary
course, to be in force and would not automatically expire by
reason of lapse of time. For the aforementioned reason, Appeal
from Order No.7/2025 is allowed and impugned order dated
03.02.2024 stands quashed and set aside.
Page 24 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
9. he next question to be decided in Appeal from Order
No.28/2019 is whether the impugned order dated 03.07.2018
(refusing to stay the inventory proceeding) and impugned order
dated 26.02.2019 (rejecting review of order dated 03.07.2018)
can be sustained for reasons stated therein.
10. he appellant Lakshmi has iled her application at Exh. D-
33 for stay of the inventory proceedings, though not having
quoted any speciic provision of law in the application, obviously
under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, 1939.
As on the date of demise of Anil on 01.01.2016, the Goa
Succession Act was not in force and the inventory proceeding was
instituted on 28.07.2016 under the provisions of the Portuguese
Civil Procedure Code, still in vogue in the State of Goa, in so far
as inventory proceedings are concerned. he application for stay
of the proceedings i.e. Exh.D-33 was iled on 15.02.2018. he
Goa Succession Act came into force on 21.12.2016, and in terms
of Section 460 thereof, which is the Repeal and Savings Clause,
from the date this Act came into force, all provisions of laws in
force corresponding to any provisions of the Goa Succession Act
stood repealed. here is no provision under the Goa Succession
Act which empowers an Inventory Court to stay the proceedings
on the ground stated under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil
Procedure Code, 1939. here is therefore no corresponding
provision in the new enactment to Article 284, which leads me to
conclude that Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure
Code, 1939 continues to empower an Inventory Court to stay the
proceedings, if grounds stated in that provision are made out.
Page 25 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
11. Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, 1939
as translated into English reads thus:-
“Article 284 – Stay by Judge – he judge may
order stay where the decision of the case is
dependent on the judgment in another case
already iled and when he is of the view that
there is another ground to justify the stay.”
12. A plain reading of this provision would empower the
Inventory Court to stay the inventory proceedings only where
grounds have been made out that a judgment in another pending
case would directly afect the outcome of decision in the
inventory proceeding. hus, to make out a case for stay of an
inventory proceeding under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil
Procedure Code, 1939, the application seeking such stay would
be required to plead all material particulars and details of such
pending proceeding whose outcome would directly afect the
decision in the inventory proceeding. his would also mean that
the application, apart from containing details of the pending case
and how the decision in the inventory proceeding will be afected
by the outcome of such pending case, would have to be pleaded,
suicient documentary proof and such other material would
necessarily have to be iled with such application to enable the
Inventory Court to arrive at a just decision, as to whether its
decision in the inventory proceeding would be materially afected
by the decision in the pending case.
13. he short question that fell for determination therefore,
before the Inventory Court, was whether the appellant Lakshmi
Page 26 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
had suiciently pleaded and produced material before it to invoke
its jurisdiction under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil
Procedure Code, 1939 to arrive at a decision that the decision in
the inventory proceeding could be materially afected by the
decision in a pending case.
14. All the parties before the Inventory Court, in this case
proceeded on the basis that since late Anil was born in Goa and
was married to Lakshmi in Goa, the provisions of the Civil Code
of 1867 would apply to his estate. he parties have also
proceeded on the basis that, considering the provisions of Section
1 of the Goa Succession Act, the inventory proceeding would
follow the procedure laid down in the Goa Succession Act for the
allotment of the estate of late Anil to his moiety holder Lakshmi
and his heirs, Chandana, Sameer, Purnima and Arjun.
15. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Goa Succession Act
declares that succession of a person covered under the Act, is
universal and may be partitioned in Goa, wherever the properties,
movable or immovable are situated. his would be subject to the
provisions of Section 373 of that Act which determines which
Court will have jurisdiction over the place where the succession
opens, to entertain the inventory proceeding. None of the parties
to the inventory proceeding have raised any objection to the
commencement of the inventory proceeding in the present
Inventory Court for allotment of the estate of late Anil,
Chandana having commenced it by iling the initial application
and all other parties having subjected themselves to the
jurisdiction of the Inventory Court at Panaji-Goa.
Page 27 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
16. he concept of “Unity of Succession” or “Universal
Succession” inds its genesis in Roman Law, where the concept of
“Hereditas” was applied, where inheritance to the entire legal
possession of a deceased man, wherever his properties may be
would be succeeded to by his heirs. his concept was also
accepted in the Portuguese Civil Code and is found incorporated
in Article 1737 of the Code. In Jose Paulo Coutinho (supra), the
Supreme Court has considered this concept and has made the
following observations:
“32. here must be unity in succession. he Portuguese law
is based on the Roman law concept of hereditas i.e.
inheritance to the entire legal position of a deceased man.
his concept of universal succession is described in the
“Comparative Analysis of Civil Law Succession”, as under:
“18. In “Comparative Analysis of Civil Law
Succession”, Villanova Law Review, Vol. 11, Issue 2,
the concept of ‘universal succession and ‘hereditas has
been described as…. succession by an individual to the entirety of the
estate, which includes all the rights and duties of the
decedent (de cujus), known e collectively as the
hereditas under Roman law. he succession to the
whole of the estate could be by one heir (heres) or
several (heredes), they taking jointly regardless of
whether the succession was testate or intestate. he
estate (hereditas), which passed in Roman succession
was the sum of all the rights and duties of the
deceased person (persona) except for his political,
social and family rights which were not considered
inheritable. Transfer of title to the heirs was deemedPage 28 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCto occur simultaneously with the individual’s death
and was a complete transfer of title at that time.”
33. hough we have held that this is Indian law, since it is a
law of Portuguese origin, we may have to take guidance
from the way in which the law has been applied to come to
the conclusion to see what is the intention of the 9 law.
herefore, all the properties of the person whose inheritance
is in question have to be calculated and considered as one
big conglomerate unit and then the rules of succession will
apply.
37. In view of the aforesaid, we are clearly of the view that
the Portuguese Civil Code being a special Act, applicable
only to the domiciles of Goa, will be applicable to the Goan
domiciles in respect to all the properties wherever they be
situated in India whether within Goa or outside Goa and
Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act or the laws of
succession would not be applicable to such Goan
domiciles.”
17. his Court in A. P. Fernandes v/s. Annette Blunt Finch –
2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 717 has considered the very same position and
applied the concept of Universal Succession by making the
following observations:
“9. Now, we shall also examine which assets are to be
considered so as to ascertain the disposable and the
mandatory part. he Order of succession to the inheritance
of the estate leaver is provided under Article 1969. he
legitime which governs the right of a married couple is
provided in Article 1108 of the Civil Code. Under Article
1737 of the Civil Code, the inheritance comprises of all the
property rights and obligations of the deceased which are
not merely personal or excluded by depositions of the estate
leaver or by law. Article 1736 of the Civil Code provides
Page 29 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOCthat the heir is a person who succeeds to the totality of the
inheritance whereas the legatee is a person in whose favour
the testator disposes of a speciic object or a certain part
thereof. Article 2009 of the Civil Code further provides
that the inheritance opens upon the death of the estate
leaver and Article 2011 of the Civil Code provides that the
transmission of ownership and possession of the heirs
whether instituted or legal, takes place from the moment of
the death of the estate leaver. Article 2016 of the Civil
Code further provides that each of the co-heir may demand
the totality of the estate to which he along with the others
are entitled without the person demanded against being
able to raise objections that the estate does not entirely
belong to him.
10. Reading the said provisions of the Civil Code, the heirs
of the estate leaver succeed to the totality of the estate
belonging to the estate leaver and not to only part of the
assets. Totality of the estate would include all the assets
belonging to the deceased which would include the assets of
the estate leaver wherever they are located. hus, in order to
determine the mandatory share of the deceased, which has
to be necessarily inherited by the descendants and/or
ascendants as pointed out hereinabove, all the assets of the
estate leaver would have to be taken into consideration to
work out such mandatory share in terms of the provisions
of the Civil Code as enumerated hereinabove. In such
circumstances, in case the properties which are located
outside the State of Goa are excluded from the Inventory
Proceedings, the determination of the mandatory share of
the estate leaver, which has to necessarily belong to the
descendants or ascendants as provided hereinabove, would
be severely and detrimentally afected.
19. he said provisions of the Civil Code thus recognise
that for the purpose of succession, there can be within
political units as many domiciles as there are systems of
Page 30 of 41
28th May 2025::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOClaws. hus, in such circumstances, the Constitution
recognises that each State might have its own law on the
subject of succession and thus there could be diferent
domiciles for diferent States. As such, the National law of
the estate leaver would govern his rights and efects of his
succession. In the present case, as already pointed out
hereinabove, the parents of the Appellants were admittedly
from Goa and were governed by the law of succession as in
force in the State. Hence, the succession of the estate leaver
in the present case would have to be examined in terms of
the provisions of the Civil Code as enumerated
hereinabove. Principally, law of succession is a law of
entitlement and also of status. It is self evident on reading
the provisions of law referred to hereinabove that for
achieving these objectives the descendants and ascendants
of the estate leaver are entitled to, the mandatory share
which they have to succeed as it would support its
continuity and unity in the family by retaining its
economic as well as juridical identity. Hence, the succession
of the estate of the estate leaver in the present case would
open in favour of the descendants both in ownership and
possession subject to the provisions of law.”
18. he application of the concept of Universal Succession
embodied in Article 1737 of the Code could also be viewed at in
a diferent situation. Prior to the liberation of Goa in 1961, the
Civil Code and more particularly Article 1737 would apply to the
inheritance of a person of Goan origin to his estate whether
within the Portuguese territory of Goa or if he held assets within
the rest of India, which would be then considered a foreign
country vis-a-vis Portuguese territory. Even then, all assets and
liabilities belonging to such a person’s estate, on his demise,
whether within the territory of Goa or overseas (in “India” or any
other country) would have to be listed in an inventory proceeding
Page 31 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
instituted in Goa; his again would be for the reasons, as held in
A. P. Fernandes (supra) that his estate comprises all assets and
liabilities, wherever they may be situated, irrespective of State or
National boundaries. his is a requirement of law since, by
operation of law, on the demise of a person, his heirs would
automatically be conferred with a right of co-ownership of the
entire estate, no matter where it is situated.
19. he same concept has been further incorporated in the Goa
Succession Act under sub-section (3) of Section 8 thereof.
Section 8 reads as under:-
“8. Opening of the succession.–
(1) Succession opens upon the death of the
estate leaver.
(2) he place where the succession opens shall
be determined as follows:–
(a) if the deceased had a permanent residence
in the State of Goa, the succession opens at
the place of his permanent residence;
(b) if the deceased did not have a permanent
residence in the State of Goa, the succession
opens where his immovable properties are
situated in the State of Goa. If his immovable
properties are situated at diferent places in
the State of Goa, the succession opens where
the major part of these properties are situated.
Such major part is calculated on the basis of
the value of the properties. If the immovable
properties of the deceased are situated partly
Page 32 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
in the State of Goa and partly outside the
State of Goa but within the country, the
succession opens in the State of Goa
irrespective of the value of the properties;
(c) the succession of a person, who died
outside the State of Goa, and did not have a
permanent residence in the State of Goa nor
did he own any immovable properties in the
State of Goa but has movables in the State of
Goa, opens at the place where the major part
of the movable assets are located,
(d) Where the deceased did not have a
permanent residence nor immovable
properties in the State of Goa, the succession
opens at the place where he died in the State
of Goa.
(3) he succession is universal and, subject to the
provisions of section 373, the succession of a
deceased person to whom this Act is applicable may
be partitioned in Goa, wherever the properties,
movable or immovable, are situated.”
20. Section 13 of the Goa Succession Act stipulates that the
ownership and possession of the inheritance is transmitted to the
heirs, whether testamentary or intestate, the moment the estate
leaver dies. Section 13 reads as under:-
“13. When the ownership and possession is
transmitted- he ownership and possession of
the inheritance is transmitted to the heirs,
whether testamentary or intestate, the moment
the estate leaver dies.”
Page 33 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
Similar provision is contained in Article 2011 of the
Portuguese Civil Code whose translation is quoted below:
“Article 2011 – Transmission of ownership and
possession of inheritance – he transmission of
the ownership and possession of the inheritance
to the heirs whether instituted or legal, takes
place from the moment of the death of the
estate-leaver.”
21. A combined reading of these provisions leaves no doubt in
my mind that applying the principle of Unity of Inheritance to
the facts of the present case, the inventory for allotment of the
estate of late Anil having been instituted in Goa, his entire estate
would be required to be listed, whether movable or immovable
assets or liabilities, in this inventory. his would be irrespective of
where his assets or liabilities are situated, in India or overseas.
he question of whether there is any conlict of law applicable to
the present case is at this point of time premature, as the assets of
the estate of late Anil have not even been placed before the Court.
All these questions may be decided only after all assets and
liabilities are listed, and only in the event of any party speciically
raising such an issue of jurisdiction or conlict of law qua such
asset or liability. he inventory proceeding is at its nascent stage
where not even the assets and liabilities of the estate leaver have
been declared before the Court. For this reason, the Trial/
Inventory Court ought not to have entered into venturing a
decision or inding on the extent of the Goa Succession Act and
whether assets in Singapore of the deceased Anil will be subject to
Indian law. To that extent, none of the indings that hold
Page 34 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
proceedings in the Singapore Court (where Lakshmi has been
appointed Administratrix) and the present inventory proceeding,
are required to go simultaneously, independent of each other or
the inding that each proceeding is not governed by law of the
other country cannot be sustained. he indings were not called
for as the issue before the Court was whether the grounds for
seeking stay of the proceedings have been made out. Such
indings shall therefore be ignored and cannot form the basis for
the considerations on grant or rejection of the application for stay
of the proceedings.
22. A perusal of the application for stay of the proceedings at
Exh.D-33 would reveal that the only ground for seeking stay of
the inventory proceeding (as stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 7 and 8 of
the application) was that Lakshmi having been appointed as
Administratrix in a proceeding in Singapore, would have to locate
the properties of the estate situated outside the State of Goa, in
order to collate these assets in the inventory proceeding. Further,
it was stated that any further pursuits or actions in contemplation
of the inventory proceedings would render the proceeding void. A
statement has also been made in the application that the
petitioner has initiated the process of ascertaining details of the
estate of late Anil situated outside India which are also under
various litigations and disputed trust assets, pending before
diferent fora. According to the averments in paragraph 4 of the
application these facts were within the knowledge of the other
heirs.
Page 35 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
23. On going through this application, all that one can
conclude is that the application contains no particulars of any
pending litigation in relation to any asset or a liability that accrues
to the estate of late Anil. here are no details worth the name
pleaded in the application of a particular litigation, the asset or
liability it covers of late Anil or how the decision on the subject
matter of that litigation would afect the decision in the present
inventory proceeding. On such vague pleadings, there could be
no case made out for raising even an iota of a ground for stay of
the present inventory proceeding or to invoke powers vested in
the Inventory Court under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil
Procedure Court, 1939.
Even the ground raised of apprehension in the mind of the
Head of the Family that she may be accused of concealing of
assets or liabilities of the estate of late Anil under Section 380,
which may result in consequences of such concealing under
Section 381 of the Goa Succession Act are misplaced. he Act
contemplates iling an initial List of Assets under Section 399
item-wise starting with debts due to the estate, securities,
actionable claims, money, foreign currency, objects of gold and
precious metals followed by movables, immovables, including
mortgages, leases and encumbrances and lastly debts due by the
estate. Objections to this list are required to be iled under
Section 400 by the heirs, and when the Head of the Family
declares under Section 401 of that Act that she is unable to give a
list of any assets which are not in her possession, the Court may
also issue directions to such other heirs who are in possession of
these assets. Deputes relating to concealment of assets have to be
Page 36 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
decided under Section 403 of that Act. Merely having an
apprehension at this stage, without even disclosing the assets and
liabilities to the knowledge of the Head of the Family would be
misplaced. It is too premature, at the present stage where the
initial list of assets have not even been iled to contemplate what
objections will come to such list from the heirs or even whether
the heirs may disclose assets or liabilities known to them. his
could not be a reason to stay the inventory proceedings.
24. he two judgments cited by Shri F. E. Noronha, one of the
Portuguese Supreme Court dated 06.03.1953 and the other of the
High Court (Relacao) dated 15.03.1949, in fact support the view
taken by me, that the application itself must disclose all reasons
and facts to enable a Court to conclude that the outcome or
pendency of a proceeding regarding the status or asset of the
deceased would afect the judgment or directions which may be
passed in the inventory proceeding. In both the judgments cited
by him, the facts that constitute the cause, including the
documents relied upon in those applications were speciically
pleaded and referred to by the Courts by considering the
application.
25. he Inventory Court was required to only assess whether
there was suicient material before it, either in the form of facts
pleaded in the application or in the form of material produced
along with the application to enable it to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Court, 1939.
here was no cause for the Inventory Court to embark upon any
decision on the law applicable to a case in Singapore or elsewhere
Page 37 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
when not a single detail of such litigations or even assets were
before the Court. For this reason, in my opinion no case has
been made out based upon the facts pleaded in the application to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Inventory Court under Article 284
of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Court, 1939 to stay the
inventory proceedings. he impugned order dated 03.07.2018,
would therefore have to be upheld but not for the reasons stated
therein. he application at Exh.D-33 for stay of the inventory
proceeding has been rightly dismissed, but for reasons that there
were no grounds made out as required under Article 284 of the
Portuguese Civil Procedure Court, 1939 for granting the same.
26. his brings me to the question raised in the Cross-
Objections No.9/2019 as to whether the review application was
at all maintainable. he main question raised before me was that
the Inventory Court is not vested with the power of review under
Section 114 r/w Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the facts of
the present case, the Inventory Court would have no jurisdiction
to even entertain an application under Section 448 of the Goa
Succession Act for review of a judgment.
27. Section 458 of the Goa Succession Act declares that an
inventory proceeding shall be a summary proceeding and shall
not be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless
speciically provided for. No part of this Act provides for
extension of the powers under Section 114 of the CPC of review
of an order. hus, the two grounds of review found in Section
114 of CPC cannot be invoked to review an order passed by an
Page 38 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
Inventory Court. Clearly therefore, the power of review under
the CPC has not been conferred upon Inventory Courts.
28. Section 448 of the Goa Succession Act provides for
Recision of Partition. Recision of Partition may be done by two
methods; the irst, through a suit to challenge the judicial
partition when it has attained inality on grounds of non-joinder
of a co-heir or where partition is obtained by fraud. he second
being by iling an application for review of a judicial partition
either on the circumstance where it is proved in a criminal
proceeding ending in conviction of a party to the proceeding, that
the judgment of partition was obtained by corruption or where
the judgment of partition is based on a false document or where
some new document is produced which was not in possession of
the party, itself being suicient to cancel the judgment of
partition or where the judgment of partition is contrary to
another judgment which constitutes res judicata. In all these
cases the Recision of Partition through the process of Review on
the grounds stated above are of the inal judgment of partition.
Section 448 does not contemplate or empower an Inventory
Court to review any of its orders (which are not in the nature of a
inal partition) on grounds of error apparent on the face of the
record or on the basis of new evidence, which was not in the
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the
applicant. In other words, the power to review any order (other
than a judgment of partition) on the grounds similar to the ones
available under Section 114 r/w. Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC,
are not vested in an Inventory Court, the jurisdiction of an
Inventory Court being a summary proceeding.
Page 39 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
29. he Inventory Court, whilst passing its order dated
26.02.2019 rejecting the application for review of its order dated
03.07.2018 ought to have irst decided the maintainability of the
application and whether it had jurisdiction, at all, to entertain the
review application under Exh.D-40. Instead of deciding the
maintainability, the Court embarked upon justifying why its
order dated 03.07.2018 was correctly passed, and in doing so has
further compounded the situation by, at paragraphs 19 and 22 to
25 thereof, observing that in view of grant of Letters of
Administration to the Head of Family, the Head of Family had to
administer the assets left behind by the deceased Anil in
accordance with the law of Singapore for the estate situated in
Singapore and was also bound to administer the estate situated in
Goa and in India as the Head of the Family appointed by the
Inventory Court. hese observations were totally uncalled for
and are beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Inventory
Court adjudicating a review application. All that the Inventory
Court was required to do was to decide irst, whether it was
vested with review jurisdiction either in terms of the Civil
Procedure Code or in terms of Section 448 of the Goa Succession
Act.
For the reasons stated in paragraphs 26 to 28 above, I hold
that the Inventory Court was not vested with the power of review
under Section 114 r/w Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC nor could it
exercise the powers vested in it under Section 448 of the Goa
Succession Act which provide for Recision of a inal judgment of
Partition. he application for review at Exh.D-40 is therefore
required to be rejected as not being maintainable. he impugned
Page 40 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
AO-28-19,XOB-9-19 & AO-7-25.DOC
order dated 26.02.2019 rejecting the review application is
therefore upheld, but for reasons stated in paragraphs 26 to 28
above, and not for reasons contained in the impugned order.
30. For the reasons stated above Appeal from Order No.7/2025
is allowed. For the same reasons, Appeal from Order No.28/2019
and Cross-Objections No.9/2019 are dismissed. All pending civil
applications stand disposed of. No costs.
31. he parties shall now appear before the Inventory Court in
Inventory Proceeding No.78/2016/B on 20.06.2025 at 10.00
a.m. he Inventory Court shall proceed with the Inventory
Proceeding in accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible. he Head of the Family Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar shall
ile the List of Assets/Properties and Liabilities of late Anil
Salgaocar before the Inventory Court by 21.07.2025.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 41 of 41
28th May 2025
::: Uploaded on – 28/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 28/05/2025 22:40:30 :::
[ad_2]
Source link