1. Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa at Margao (First Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 93/2013.

4. Upon the expiry of Placido Joao Joaquim Santo Aleixo da Costa, his son, the petitioner no.1, initiated Inventory Proceedings No. 98/1983/E, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao (Trial Court) to get the estate of the deceased partitioned. In the said Inventory Proceedings, the widow of the deceased namely Delfina Isabel Braganza e Costa was appointed as Cabeca de Casal but as she was old and unable to discharge the duties of Cabeca de Casal, the petitioner no.1 came to be appointed as Cabeca de Casal. The said Delfina Isabel Braganza e Costa died on 05/06/1994. It appears that in the year 2003, an Engineer namely Mr. Mahendra S. Kakule was appointed as Commissioner to prepare valuation reports in respect of the immovable properties which were enlisted in the list of assets. On 30/11/2012, the petitioner no. 1, as Head of the Family, filed the list of assets. On 07/01/2013, the respondents filed objections to the said list of immovables/movables filed by the petitioner no.1. By Order dated 04/02/2013, the Trial Court dismissed the said objections and confirmed the list of assets. Subsequently, the same Engineer Shri Mahendra S. Kakule, at the instance of the learned Trial Court, prepared fresh Valuation Reports dated 26/03/2013 in respect of the three immovable properties, enlisted in the list of assets. On 22/07/2013, the respondents filed their Say/objections to the Valuation Reports dated 26/03/2013.

5. In their objections, the respondents alleged that no notice of inspection was issued by the Valuer to the interested parties and that no personal site inspection was done by the valuer. It was further alleged that it is not known as to who identified the properties to the valuer. It was further alleged that the interested parties namely Piedade Costa alias Patsy da Costa resides in the ancestral house no. 1267 located in the property under Survey No. 105/9 of village Curtorim along with her children and since the time of the death of the estate leaver, it is the husband of the said interested party, late Roque Antonio Ricardo da Costa with the interested party Piedade Costa and her children have carried out annual maintenance and repairs to the ancestral house and also done improvements and renovation to the same. It was alleged that the said facts could not be brought to the notice of the Valuer in view of the absence of inspection and therefore, great injustice as such is caused to the interested parties. It was, therefore, prayed that the Valuer be called to explain the objections and the interested parties be permitted to cross-examine the Valuer on his reports.

6. The Cabeca de Casal endorsed his objection on the said say/objections on the ground that the same are filed beyond limitation period.

7. By order dated 28/08/2013, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said objections. The Trial Court observed that the Valuer had earlier visited the property long back in the year 2003 with the interested party and therefore, there was no necessity to identify the property. It was further held that since the interested party did not object to the list of assets, the alleged improvements done by the interested party were not asked to be valued. It was further observed that the house was not valued as the Valuer was asked to value only the property and not the house. It was also held that the valuation cannot be termed as exorbitant since it was as on 1975. The Trial Court observed that the list of assets was filed long back on 16/09/2011 and hence the objections r