The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 400(5) of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 requires the Inventory Court to hold a summary inquiry when objections are raised regarding the listing of assets or liabilities.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Rupa Banaulikar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanvi Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Admit. With the consent and at the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal finally.

3. The appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2019 made by the Inventory Court on the objections raised at Exhibits 46, 49 and 54 by the interested parties. The objections so raised were objected to by the head of the family by filing replies at Exhibits 53 and 55.

4. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 400(5) of The Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (the said Act) contemplates holding atleast a summary inquiry before the disposal of objections. He submits that in this case objections have been disposed of by the Inventory Court, without holding any such inquiry. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

5. Mr. Mulgaonkar, in the alternative, submits that even otherwise the reasoning of the Inventory Court is quite vulnerable as the same overlooks the material on record. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that most of the contentions raised by the appellant were not even considered while make the impugned order.

6. Mr. Ugsaonkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that inquiry is required to be held only if the objections are of substantial nature and not where the objections are quite frivolous. Mr. Usgaonkar submits that in any case the objections of the appellant have been duly considered by the Inventory Court and, therefore, it would be quite futile to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for holding some formal inquiry. He submits that based on documentary evidence produced by the respondents, no other view was possible and therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered with.

7. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

8. Section 400 of the said Act reads as follows:

'400. Objections to the list of assets and other objections. - (1) Within 30 days from the date the head of the family submits the list of assets, the parties may raise the following objections:-

(a) that all assets have not been listed;

(b) that the head of the family or the donee denies the existence of the assets in his possession;

(c) that the head of the family or the donee denies his duties or obligation to collate;

(d) that the head of the family or the donee disputes that he has received assets which are attributed to have been received by him.

(2) Any party may, at any time after the expiry of 30 days, raise objection that all the assets have not been listed, provided such party satisfies the Court that he acquired knowledge of the existence of the properties only within the last 30 days before the presentation of the objection. But failure to raise such objection shall not deprive the party from seeking additional partition as provided in section 371.

(3) Where an objection has been raised that all assets and liabilities have not been listed, notice of the objection shall be given to the head of the family or the donee and they shall be called upon to list out the assets or liabilities left out or to give their say.

(4) Where the head of the family or donee who has been served with notice of the objections admits the existence of the assets or liabilities and acknowledges that they belong to the inheritance but requires time to list them, he may apply for time for the said purpose.

(5) Where the head of the family or the donee denies the existence of the assets or liabilities or declares that they do not belong to the inheritance, the court shall hold a summary inquiry as deemed necessary and decide whether the assets or liabilities should be listed.

(6) Where the dispute cannot be decided summarily and it is necessary to hold a detailed inquiry,