Heard Shri T. Da Costa, appellant no.1 in person and also on behalf of the other appellants and Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.

2. Admit.

3. Shri V. Korgaonkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. It was the contention of Shri T. Da Costa, that the Cabeca de Casal has not listed all the immovable properties in the Inventory Proceedings which were initially initiated in 1945 on the death of Rosa Joaquina Luis De Souza and subsequently in the proceedings continued thereafter on the demise of her husband Emidio Simao Ismael de Souza in 1974. The Cabeca de Casal had during the pendency of the Inventory Proceedings executed the Deed of Relinquishment and Gift dated 24.01.1975 renouncing her share in the property of her father Emidio Simao Ismael de Souza. The Deed of Assignment and Transfer was executed by Maria Teresa De Souza, sister of the Cabeca de Casal on 21.10.1976 ceding her right to the estate of her father in favour of her brother Mario Cornelio Francisco De Souza i.e. Inventariado. His son Ernesto Agnelo De Souza had executed the Deed of Assignment on 10.1.1979 in favour of her brother Fausto De Souza who during his life time sold 2/3rd of his share by the Deed of Sale dated 25.9.2006 to one Natalina Fernandes. The other brother Mario had purchased from Natalina by the Deed of Sale dated 12.10.2006 the 2/3rd share of Fausto De Souza earlier sold to her and therefore Mario was sole and exclusive owner of the entire properties. The said Mario had expired on 16.6.2007 while Fausto had expired on 20.10.2007.

5. An application was filed by Maria, the Cabeca de Casal as a precautionary measure under Sections 405 and 406 of the Portuguese Civil Code on account of the acts of interference by the respondents. Shri T. Da Costa, further submitted that an FIR was registered against the respondents upon the locker being found empty on opening and therefore an application was filed for temporary injunction which however came to be dismissed by the order under challenge. No list of assets was filed by the respondents. There was error in the impugned order and therefore, the appeal had to be allowed quashing the order under challenge. He relied in Madan Lal Khuteta Vs Badri Narayan, (AIR 1988 Rajasthan 61) and Mrs. Connie Miranda Vs. Antonio Joaquim Gracias, (2010 (6) ALL MR 226).

6. Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate submitted that no injunction was sought against the Cabeca de Casal. An application for removal of the Cabeca de Casal was rejected and even an earlier application for injunction was rejected. The immovable properties too had not been listed in terms of Article 1380 of the Portuguese Civil Code. There was no order passed for the removal of the Cabeca de Casal till date. There was no reference in the application for injunction to any transactions of sale since the rejection of the earlier application for injunction till the present application came to be filed for the stated reliefs. No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order and hence the appeal was liable for dismissal. He relied in Stayadhyan Ghosal and others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another (AIR 1960 SCC 941) and Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar, (AIR 1964 SCC 993).

7. Shri T. Da Costa, laboriously charted out the family tree before embarking on his submissions relevant to the present appeal. However such an exercise was not at all warranted and therefore no reference whatsoever is made to the family history and the family tree to which he had made a detailed reference in his opening arguments on behalf of the appellants. There was no particular dispute of the fact that the applicant was appointed as a Cabeca de Casal in the proceedings at large before the Inventory Court and being the respondent herein. It is a matter of record that the appellant no.1 herein as an interested party had sought for the relief of temporary injunction by his application dated 6.5