The Head of Family must provide a declaration strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Goa Succession Act, separating personal objections from official duties.

JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order passed by the first Appellate Court dated 27.09.2023 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2021. By this order, the first Appellate Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Inventory Court dated 06.12.2021 and directed to discard the additional declaration/affidavit filed by the Head of the Family [HoF] on 30.07.2019 with further direction to the HoF to give fresh declaration keeping in mind the provisions of Section 376 (3) and (4) of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012 [the Act of 2012, for short].

4. The learned Inventory Court vide order dated 06.12.2021 disposed of the Application [Exhibit-72] filed by the interested party, namely, Christopher Fernandes, who is Respondent No. 1 herein, raising objection to the additional declaration filed by the Petitioner/HoF on the precise ground that such additional declaration is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 376 of the Act of 2012 and in fact it contains pleadings as to how the Will is null and void. The learned Inventory Court while considering such additional declaration rejected the objection filed by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that there is no provision to discard such declaration and that an inquiry will have to be conducted to find out whether the Will is a genuine document or otherwise. The Petitioner/HoF challenged such a decision wherein the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 was passed.

5. Mr. Bhobe would submit that the declaration was very much required and the same is in consonance with the provisions of Section 376 (3) and (4) of the Act of 2012 and therefore, the learned Inventory Court was fully justified to accept such declaration thereby directing to conduct an inquiry whether Respondent No. 1 could be considered as the heir on the basis of the Will and whether the Will is a genuine document. He submits that there is no provision or power to discard the declaration as the HoF is duty-bound to give a declaration disclosing the name and status of the estate leaver as provided in clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 376 of the Act of 2012. He submits that the statement made in the said additional declaration is only to put forth the facts and the same could not have been discarded by the first Appellate Court. He submits that the findings of the first Appellate Court are perverse and there is no mention of conducting any inquiry as directed by the learned Trial Court.

6. Mr. Bhobe would submit that the additional declaration was required since Respondent No. 1 filed a Petition before the Bombay High Court, however, it was subsequently withdrawn and this fact was required to be brought on record by additional declaration to prove that the said Respondent No. 1 is not the heir of the deceased. He further submits that the additional declaration only discloses that the Will cannot be taken on record as a genuine document for the purpose of deciding the Inventory Proceedings or even accepting Respondent No. 1 as the heir.

7. Mr. Lobo appearing for Respondent No. 1 would contend that the requirements of Section 376 of the Act of 2012 only gives power to the HoF to give a declaration on oath and not the pleadings or the contentions which the HoF or as the interested party would try to suggest. He submits that such declaration, in question, cannot be termed as a declaration under Section 376 (3) of the Act of 2012 since it mostly contains the pleadings as well as the allegations as to how the Will is null and void.

8. Mr. Lobo would submit that in view of Section 378 of the Act of 2012, any declarations given by the HoF are required to be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. According to him, such a declaration is acceptable. It is submitted that the statement made therein that the Will is null and void ought to have been