Inventory proceedings under the Goa Succession Act are summary in nature and not governed by CPC unless specifically provided, allowing for proceedings in absentia.

JUDGEMENT

1.

Heard Appellant No. 1 in person and Mr. Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Korgaonkar for the Respondents.

2.

Admit.

3.

The present matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent of the Appellants who appeared in person and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents.

4.

The order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in the inventory proceedings is challenged in the present Appeal.

5.

Appellant No. 1 argued the matter in person whereas Appellant No. 2 was personally present with her.

6.

Both the Appellants who are residents of Mumbai claimed that the inventory proceedings were conducted in their absence including the licitation and auction, which according to them is illegal and bad in law. The Appellants, therefore, filed an Application under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order of auction and also to recall/quash the licitation, which was held ex-parte.

7.

It is the contention of Appellant No. 1 that she is the eldest daughter/child of deceased Francis Lobo, upon whose death Inventory Proceedings No. 188/2014 was filed by her brother/ Respondent No. 1. It is further her case that the survey records and more specifically, Form I & XIV with regard to the properties bear the name of her great grandfather Francis Lobo/Francisco Lobo and not that of her father, who also had the similar name. It is her contention that Respondent No. 1 mislead the Trial Court in believing that the estate belongs to Francis Lobo i.e. her father and father of Respondent No. 1, when in fact the estate belongs to her great grandfather having the same name i.e. Francis Lobo/Francisco Lobo. Francis Lobo/Francisco Lobo (great grandfather of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1) had one son by the name of Roque Denisio Lobo (grandfather of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1) and said Roque Lobo had two children, namely, Francis Lobo (father of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1) and Esmeralda Mendes nee Lobo. She submits that the properties left by her great grandfather, which in fact devolved upon Roque Lobo, however, the same was never allotted or transferred to Roque Lobo and further to her father Francis Lobo and his sister Esmeralda Lobo. She claimed that the entire inventory proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 are fraudulent being based on a false premise that the deceased Francis Lobo, who died on 25.01.1979, was the sole owner/estate leaver. It is submitted that in fact, the sister of Francis Lobo by the name Esmeralda Mendes nee Lobo also had rights in the said properties, which belonged to her grandfather Francis Lobo. According to her Esmeralda Mendes nee Lobo and her legal heirs are also entitled to the said properties, which were auctioned ex-parte on 29.09.2021 and that too without notice to the Appellants. She claimed that fraud has been played on the Courts by misleading that Francis Lobo was the sole owner.

8.

The Appellants then further claimed that the commencement of the inventory proceedings at the behest of Respondent No. 1 on 10.04.2014 is replete with falsehoods. She claimed that Respondent No. 1 is not in possession and enjoyment of the said estate as a legal heir or as the administrator. The estate is in fact in care and possession of the tenants whose names are figuring in the survey records. According to the Appellants, the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Head of Family [HoF] is also by playing fraud and without the consent of the Appellants. They further claimed that Respondent No. 1 always lived in Mumbai and had no connection with the properties as he spent major part of his life as an Officer of the Merchant Navy. Appellant No. 1 claimed that she is the eldest child of deceased Francis Lobo and that Respondent No. 1 has misled the Court by projecting that the properties which in fact belong to their great grandfather as that of their father.

9.

The prayers in the said Application under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. are to recall the order of appointment of Respon