The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to discharge duties as the head of the family, as outlined in the Goa Succession Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, can lead to disqualification and removal.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - In September 2009, the appellant was appointed the head of the family, in the Inventory Proceeding involving himself and other legal heirs of the estate leavers: the parents. In August 2016, the 1st and the 2nd respondents applied to the trial Court to remove the appellant from being the head of the family.

2. In turn, the trial Court tried the issue and eventually passed the impugned order, dated 13.8.2019. It has held that the appellant incurred disqualification under section 384 of the Goa Succession Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 ("the Act"). Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this Appeal from Order.

Arguments:

Appellant:

3. Shri Coutinho, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant himself is one of the co-owners, and he has every concern for the property. The allegations he has faced, according to him, are trivial. To underline his submission, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the taxi bills.

4. Shri Coutinho has first drawn my attention to section 379 of the Act, which enumerates the rights and the obligations the head of the family has. Then, he has taken me to section 384 of the Act, which lists out the aspects of misconduct. According to him, the respondents' complaint, perhaps, attracts only clause (7) of section 384. But Shri Coutinho hastens to add that the application, vague as it has been, has not set out how the appellant failed to discharge the duties as the head of the family.

5. In this context, Shri Coutinho has referred to the tenancy dispute involving the estate. According to him, the appellant has been trying to negotiate an advantageous deal with the tenants. Instead of appreciating the appellant's efforts, the trial Court has tried to "fine-tune" the tenancy litigation, which is not before it.

Respondents:

6. On the other hand, Shri Menino Pereira, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, has taken me through the record. He has, then, pointed out that the appellant submitted no statement of accounts for years on end, until the respondents applied in September 2016 for his removal. According to him, the whole section 379 stands violated.

7. To elaborate on his submission, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the appellant's deposition before the trial Court. From that, he has pointed out that the appellant has even refused to testify before the trial Court that the statement of the account he has produced is correct and reflects the true position. Then, the trial Court was constrained to serve a warning on the appellant not to be evasive while deposing on oath before a court of law.

8. Eventually, Shri Pereira has submitted that the appellant has failed to function as the head of the family in tune with the statutory mandate under section 379 of the Act. So the trial Court has, he stresses, ordered his removal.

9. Heard Shri C. A. Coutinho, the learned counsel for the appellant; and Shri M. Pereira, the learned counsel for the respondents.

Discussion:

10. The issue concerns the removal of the head of the family in inventory proceedings. To appreciate the issue, we must, first, examine the statutory scheme on the issue.

11. Section 379 enumerates the "Rights and Duties of the head of the family". And the provision reads:

Section 379 - Rights and Duties of the Head of the family.-- (a) The head of the family, as manager of the estate, shall receive all income and profits of the assets in his possession and shall meet the normal liabilities of the inheritance and shall every year render accounts to the court, in the miscellaneous proceeding, in case the usufruct of the assets does not belong to him.

The head of the family is bound to render accounts from the date he takes charge of the assets of the inheritance and to deposit the balance amount in a Nationalized Bank, after the amount required to meet the expenses for management of the assets is deducted. Any sum handed over to the heirs under section 252 sh