JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The appellants in this appeal filed under section 451(2) of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, have challenged an order dated 7/1/2019 passed by the Court of Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Vasco-da Gama, in Special Inventory Proceedings No.4/2010/A, whereby an application filed under section 402 of the aforesaid Act has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that- the respondent no.1 initiated the aforesaid inventory proceedings under the then applicable Family Laws of Goa, Daman and Diu, upon the death of the mother of respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 was appointed as Head of Family in the said proceedings initiated on 7/9/2010. He filed a list of assets on 23/4/2020, including properties at four locations. On 20/7/2012, the appellants being the legal heirs of the brother of respondent no.1 filed their objections to the aforesaid list, marked as Exhibit 41. The appellant sought exclusion of part of a property at "Marautanga" (Item no.4) in the list of assets as also the property at "Guloi" (Item no.5a) in the aforesaid list and similarly, exclusion of parts of properties at "Ponderachixira"(Item 5b) and "Camarali Nomoxi" (Item no.5c). Apart from this, the appellants sought inclusion of some assets in the list.

3. The respondent no.3 in the present appeal filed objections. Apart from seeking inclusion of certain properties, she specifically sought inclusion of a house called "Villa Lima Leitao" along with the plot thereunder in the list of assets. Similarly, objections were filed by the respondent no.6 seeking inclusion of a property called "Fondient". The respondent no.1 filed replies to such objections and thereupon an inquiry was directed into the objections raised by the parties. On 4/1/2016, the Court passed an order specifically recording that the objections raised by the respondent no.3 at (Exhibit 44-D) and the one raised by the respondent no.6 at (Exhibit 45-D) were being disposed of by the said order. The Court referred to the objections of the appellant and thereafter passed an order allowing the prayer made on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 6 at Exhibit 44D and 45D. It was specifically recorded that the residential house "Villa Lima Leitao" along with plot of land in the property known as "Carvatem" stood included in the list of assets. It is significant that the said order did not deal with or dispose of the objections specifically raised on behalf of the appellant at Exhibit 41.

4. The respondent no.1 challenged the said order dated 4/1/2016 by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2017. Admittedly, the said appeal was dismissed as it was not pursued. It is also relevant that the aforesaid Act of 2012 came into force in the year 2016 and further inventory proceedings were to be undertaken under the said Act.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 4/1/2016 passed by the Court, on 6/3/2018, the respondent no.1 filed a revised list of assets, calling it draft revised list of assets. Objections were raised on behalf of the appellants as well as other respondents. But, thereafter, on 12/3/2018, the respondent no.1 filed a fresh draft revised list of assets. The respondent no.1 also filed a pursis on 25/4/2018 stating that the said draft revised list of assets was in terms of the order dated 4/1/2016 passed by the Court and that he did not possess any documents pertaining to the assets mentioned in the list.

6. The appellants filed objections to the said draft revised list of assets dated 25/4/2018 marked as Exhibit 131, wherein it was specifically stated that the details of the source of title ought to be brought on record concerning revised list of assets at items nos.2 to 8. By order dated 20/7/2018, the said objection at Exhibit 131 raised on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the said objection had already been dealt with by the aforesaid order dated 4/1/2016. It is a matter of record that neither the or