Challenge in this appeal is to the Order dated 15-10-1999 of the learned Comarca Judge at Margao.

2. The short question for consideration is whether the property located at Mumbai and which is enlisted under Item No.8 is required to be excluded or not from the Inventory Proceedings. The said issued was required to be decided by the learned Comarca Judge by virtue of Order of this Court dated 16-3-1999 in appeal from Order No. 59/1998.

3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. Inventory Proceedings are going on upon the death of Joaquim Mariano Pereira and his wife Claudina Lacerda Pereira who died leaving behind three daughters namely Maria Augusta Antoneita Luisa Pereira Fernandes, Virginia Pereira and Maria Luiza Valetina Pereira. Initially the said Virginia Pereira was appointed as Administrator and had listed the properties of the said inventoried/inventariados. Subsequently Maria Augusta came to be appointed as the Administrator and she chose not to include the said property under Item No.8. It appears that the respondent No. 1 who is the son-in-law of the said Virginia Pereira raised the dispute regarding the exclusion of the said property and which disputed was required to be decided, as directed by the said Order of this Court dated 16-31999.

4. There is no dispute that both the inventoried were nationals who were governed by the Civil Code, 1867 which is in force in this State (Code, for short). The inventoried Claudina Lacerda Pereira died on 31-10-1960 and the inventoried Joaquim Mariano Pereira died on 2-8-1967 and the latter prior to his death on 6-5-1957, made a Will in respect of the said property at Mumbai in favour of his youngest daughter, the said Maria Luiza Pereira bequeathing the said property in her favour and by the same Wi11 he also made a bequest of Rs: 3,000/- each to his said two other daughters namely Virginia Pereira and Maria Augusta Antonieta Pereira Femandes.

5. The learned Comarca Court by the impugned Order dated 15-10-1999 after referring to Articles 24, 2098 and 1961 of the said Code concluded that the cardinal principle of law under the said Code and regarding inventory proceedings was to have equality of shares amongst all the co-heirs and for that reason all the properties whether gifted or bequeathed had to be included in the list of assets. The learned Judge also held that the doctrine of lex situs also had to come within the purview of collation. Referring to Article 1961 of the said Code, the learned Judge noted that Wills made by the Portuguese in foreign country would also produce their legal effects in the Kingdom when they are drawn authentically in accordance with the law of the country where they have been executed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the appellants, has also referred to Article 24 of the said Code and has submitted that the disputed property could not be included in the inventory because both the deceased being nationals governed by the Code, their immovable properties situated within Goa alone could be subjected to the inventory proceedings. That the disputed property had to be excluded from the inventory proceedings and that it would be governed by law in force at that place, learned Senior Counsel has referred to section 5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides that succession to the immovable property in India of a person deceased shall be regulated by law of India, wherever such person deceased may have had his domicile at the time of his death.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to some decisions of the Apex Court and to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Monica Variato vs. Thomas Varia to, 2000(2) Goa L.1'. 149. The said decisions of the Apex Court have been considered by the leamed Division Bench and after considering the same in para 15(2)(a), the learned Division Bench has held that applying the principles of Private International Law, bearing in mind various personal l