The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Portuguese Civil Code provisions related to the presumption of truth in declarations made by the administrator, examination and inspection of the file, description of immovables, and disputes which cannot be decided by inspection of certain documents.

Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

2. By this Petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/02/2013 passed by the learned District Judge–I, North Goa at Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2010.

3. Inventory Proceedings no. 47/1997/B for partitioning the estate of the deceased Reginaldo Baptist Lobo and his wife Felicidade Fernandes, were instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court), by their son Shri Vitorino Jose Mariano Lobo, since deceased. Prior to the impugned order, the petitioner no. 1 was the Cabeca de casal (administrator) in the said Inventory proceedings whereas as the other petitioners and the respondents were the interested parties. In the course of the proceedings, Cabeca de Casal listed certain properties as belonging to the deceased grand parents. The respondents no. 1 to 5 raised objections alleging that none of the properties listed in the list of assets belong to the estate-leavers and that the properties at serial nos. 1 to 5 belong to the estate of late Aleixo Mariano Lobo and his wife Luizinha Inacina D'Souza, the parents and parents-in-law of the said objectors. The respondents no. 1 to 5 demanded that inquiry be held in terms of Article 2087 of Portuguese Civil Code. Accordingly, an inquiry was held by the Trial Court.

4. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, partly allowed the objections of the interested parties and held that the properties at items no. 1 to 5 are the properties belonging to late Reginaldo Baptist Lobo and are to be included in the list of assets and that the properties at items no. 1 to 14 are to be excluded from the said list.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13/08/2009, the said objectors preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 185 of 2010 before the District Court, North Goa at Panaji. By impugned order dated 14/02/2013, the learned First Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court insofar as it held that items no. 1 to 5 are to be included in the list of assets. The order of the Trial Court insofar as it held that items no. 1 to 14 are to be excluded was confirmed. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

6. Insofar as the items no. 1 and 5 are concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there was no land registration document of inscription and description, however, there were survey records in Forms no. I and XIV in respect of the said items which were in the name of the mother of the petitioners. He invited my attention to Article 1370 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that there is presumption of truth in respect of the declarations made by the administrator and the contrary has to be proved by the objectors. He submitted that the declaration made by Cabeca de Casal, in respect of items no. 1 and 5, was not in the own interest of the petitioner no.1 and therefore the same was proved. According to him, the presumption under Article 1370 cannot be rebutted by the presumption which arises from Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code. He pointed out to the objections raised by the objectors, wherein it is not stated that the administrator has made declaration in his own interest. He then read out the provisions of Articles 1377, 1379 and 1380 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, therefore, the finding by the First Appellate Court that the Cabeca de Casal had not been able to rebut the presumption in respect of the entries in the survey records with regard to the item nos. 1 to 5 is erroneous.

7. With regard to the items no. 2, 3 and 4, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Cabeca de Casal had produced the description and inscription documents. He contended that the Inven