1. The challenge in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Judgment and order dated 26/7/2010 passed by the learned District Judge at Margo in Misc. Civil Appeal No.16/2010. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the respondent has been partly allowed, as a result of which the order dated 9/7/2009 refusing to delete certain items from the list of assets, passed by the Inventory Court, has been set aside.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus; That Inventory Proceedings No.59/1991/II have been initiated on the death of Santano Silva who is the father of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner happens to be the Cabeca de Casal. The petitioner filed list of assets on 29/6/1996 and 16/11/1996. The respondent/interested party objected to the same. Specifically stated, the respondent sought deletion of item no.11 and 12 and item nos. 16 to 45 on the ground that the same did not belong to the estate leaver.

3. It appears that the Inventory Court recorded the evidence of the parties on the point of the finalization of the list of assets and by an order dated 9/7/2009 rejected the objections, thereby refusing to delete item nos.11 and 12 and 16 to 45 from the list of assets. This was challenged by the respondent before the learned District Judge.

The learned District Judge framed the following points:

1. Whether the learned trial court rightly held that item nos. 11 and 12 form the estate of the estate leaver?

2. Whether the learned trial court rights held that items nos. 16 to 45 form liability of the estate leaver?

3. Can an Inventory Court declare a Will null and void?

4. The learned District Judge answered all the points in the negative and proceeded to partly allow the appeal. The net result is that the item nos.11 and 12 and 16 to 46 stand deleted. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.

5. I have heard Shri Diniz, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramani, the learned counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the order passed by the Inventory Court as well as that of the learned District Judge.

6. It is submitted by Shri Diniz, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as item nos.11 and 12 are concerned, which consist of land survey nos.54/3 and 42/9 of village Varca, they are admittedly belonging to the Comunidade of Varca and are in the nature of a coconut grove. It is submitted that the deceased Santano Silva, was admittedly cultivating the land from the year 1935 onwards and was continuously in possession of the said land. In the year 1971, the land was auctioned in favour of one Pedro Thomas. It is however, submitted that Pedro Thomas was never put into possession of the said land. Although the said land was auctioned in favour of the respondent in the year 1975 that was only on account of the fact that because of certain allegations made against the petitioner of having committed encroachment on the Comunidade land, the petitioner was not entitled to bid at the auction. It is pointed out that the respondent has also admitted in his evidence that he was the tenant of the land through his father i.e. the deceased Santano Silva. It is thus submitted that the respondent has also admitted that the possession of the land was with his father i.e. the Estate leaver. He, therefore, submits that the property at item nos. 11 and 12 could not have been deleted.

7. It is submitted that the Will also records that the petitioner had renovated the old house and an additional portion has been constructed at his own cost in the year 1958, which forms the major portion of the said house. It is pointed out that the Will also records that major repairs of the said house were done by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the Estate leaver in the Will dated 27/2/1986 has recorded that the petitioner had helped him to clear al