Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 2598 OF 2023 (F)

1. Pragati Pravin Pawaskar, daughter of late Suresh Prabhu Walavalkar, aged 50 years, Indian National, r/o Flat No. FR9, Pai Bhavan, Tonca, Panaji, Tiswadi, Goa – 403 001.

2. Sunita Suresh Prabhu Walavalkar alias Sunita Suresh Walavalkar, widow of late Suresh Prabhu Walavalkar, aged 77 years, Indian National, r/o 1553, Laxminayaran Nivas (Hotel Raj), Udham Nagar, Kudal, Maharashtra. … Petitioners Versus Rajesh Suresh Prabhu Walavalkar alias Rajesh Suresh Walavalkar, son of late Suresh Prabhu Walavalkar, aged 57 years, Indian National, r/o 1553, Laxminayaran Nivas (Hotel Raj), Udham Nagar, Kudal, Maharashtra. … Respondent *****

Mr. Raunaq Rao with Ms. Tabitha Souto, Advocates for the Petitioners.

Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Ajay Menon, Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED: 24^th JANUARY 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.

Heard Mr. Raunaq Rao for the Petitioners and Mr. Parag Rao for the Respondent.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter for final disposal at the stage of admission itself with consent of parties.

3.

The Petitioners preferred the present Petition, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dated 07.10.2023, thereby appointing the Respondent as Head of the Family in the Inventory Proceedings No. 82/2020, in view of Section 376 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 [Act of 2012, for short].

4.

Mr. Raunaq Rao appearing for the Petitioners would submit that upon the death of the father of Petitioner No. 1, she filed an Inventory Proceedings before the Trial Court and in the said proceedings itself, requested the Court to appoint her as the Head of the Family. However, the learned Trial Court appointed the widow i.e. the mother of Petitioner No. 1 as Head of the Family. Subsequently, since the mother of Petitioner No. 1 was unable to carry out the duties of the Head of the Family, she requested the Court to relieve her from the said post. Accordingly, an Application was filed by the Respondent to appoint him as the Head of the Family.

5.

Mr. Raunaq Rao would submit that though Petitioner No. 1 objected to such appointment, no inquiry was conducted by the learned Trial Court and only on the basis of the Application and objections, passed the impugned order.

6.

Mr. Raunaq Rao submits that it was mandatory on the part of the Inventory Court to notify Petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of conducting inquiry and to give an opportunity to Petitioner No. 1 to lead evidence to prove her claim to the post of the Head of the Family. He submits that by not giving such opportunity, the Petitioners have been deprived of producing the relevant material and thus, the order itself is bad in law.

7.

Mr. Raunaq Rao would then submit that the deceased stayed with Petitioner No. 1 at the time of his death and therefore, Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to be appointed as the Head of the Family. He also referred to Article 1374 of the CPC to submit that the inquiry was must and since the Petitioners were not notified, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. He would then submit that Petitioner No. 1 has all the relevant documents to support her claim to the said post and if opportunity is given, Petitioner No. 1 would be able to succeed in proving the aspect, which would entitle her to the office of the Head of the Family.

8.

Mr. Raunaq Rao also placed reliance on decisions of this Court, which I would like to discuss at the relevant stage.

9.

Per contra, Mr. Parag Rao, the learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the provisions of the Act of 2012 specifically mentions when an inquiry or evidence is required. He submits that there is no question of any elaborate inquiry allowing the parties to lead evidence to prove the claim over the office of the Head of the Family. It is submitted that even otherwise, the documents produced by Petitioner No. 1 as well as her reply to the Application fil