SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2966

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
VALMIKI MENEZES, J
MRS. LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR – Appellant
Versus
MRS CHANDANA ANIL SALGAOCAR – Respondent
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28/2019 | CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.9/2019 | APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.7/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Nitin Sardessai, Ms Gautami Kamat
For the Respondents:Respondent No.1 in person, Mr F. E. Noronha, Mr Rahul Kamat, Mr Gustavo Monteiro

The court ruled that for inventory proceedings, all estate assets must be included, regardless of their location, and insufficient grounds were presented to stay such proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Goa Succession Act, 2012 - Section 8(3) - Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 - Inventory proceedings concerning the estate of deceased, with disputes arising due to multiple administration claims - Appellants did not sufficiently prove a pending litigation that could impact the Inventory Court's decisions - The appeals and review application were evaluated based on the jurisdiction of the court and adherence to the relevant laws concerning universal succession and inventory requirements. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 26, 30)

(B) Jurisdiction of Inventory Court - The court has no review power under Goa Succession Act as it pertains to inventory proceedings. (Paras 26-28)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from an inventory proceeding regarding the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar, who died in Singapore, leaving behind a widow and four children as heirs. Disputes over the administration of the estate prompted the filing of appeals by the widow against orders denying stays on proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Inventory Court's refusal to stay inventory proceedings based on the lack of sufficient reason to affect decisions about the estate's distribution.

Issues: Whether sufficient grounds existed for the stay of proceedings and the applicability of laws from both Singapore and Goa as they relate to universal succession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that absent specific details of pending litigation that could influence the inventory ruling, staying such proceedings was unjustified based on the principles of the Goa Succession Act. Therefore, inventory proceedings should include all assets of the deceased regardless of location.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. identification of parties and context of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. overview of the estate and initial legal actions taken. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. details on the procedural history and conflicting applications filed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. fundamental principles of succession and relevant laws considered. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's interpretation of universal succession and applicable laws. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. assessment of powers of the inventory court and application of law. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. conclusion on the maintenance of review applications and powers of the court. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
8. final decision issued by the court with directions for proceedings. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By consent of all the parties to the above appeals/cross objections, all these appeals/cross objections are disposed of by this common judgment, at the stage of admission. he above appeals/cross objection arise from an Order dated 03.07.2018, Order dated 26.02.2019 and from an Order dated 03.02.2024 passed in Inventory Proceeding No.78/2016/B before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji.

2. he facts required to be considered to decide the present appeals/cross objection are as under:-

(a) he estate leaver Anil Vasudeva Salgaocar expired on 01.01.2016 in Singapore, leaving as his moiety holder, his widow Mrs Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (appellant no.1 in Appeal From Order No.28/2019) and four children as heirs to the estate; the four children are Mr Sameer Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.2 in AO 28/2019), Ms Chandana Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.1 in AO 28/2019 and Cross-Objector in AO 28/2019), Ms Purnima Anil Salgaocar (respondent no.3 in AO 28/2019) and Mr Arjun Anil Salgaocar (originally respondent no.4, later transposed as appellant no.2 as attorney of appellant no.1, in AO 28/2019).

For brevity, the parties shall be referred to by their irst name in this judgment.

It is not in dispute that Anil was married to Lakshmi at Goa, with their marriage being registered in accordance with the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 (Code) and are governed inter se by the provisions of that Code. It is also not in dispute that Anil, by virtue of his birth in Goa, was governed by the Code, and his estate, which consists of properties/assets, in the State of Goa, in other States in India and overseas would be governed by the provisions of the Code.

(b) It is also not in dispute that Chandana iled on 30.06.2016 a Case seeking Letters Of Administration to distribute the estate of late Anil which was numbered as Case No.HCF/S1/2017 before the Family Justice Courts in the Republic of Singapore. Initially, Chandana sought to be appointed as Administratrix but subsequently withdrew her application, and in that proceeding, Anil’s wife Lakshmi was granted Letters of Administration and was appointed Administratrix by the Family Justice Courts in the Republic of Singapore on 03.07.2017.

(c) In the meanwhile, Chandana also iled on 28.07.2016 an Inventory Proceeding bearing No.78/2016/B before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji seeking distribution of the estate of late Anil Salgaocar. In the Inventory Proceeding, since Lakshmi, was the spouse and moiety holder of Anil, she was appointed as Head of the Family on 20.10.2016. On 06.05.2017, Lakshmi, as Head of the Family iled a Declaration on Oath before the Inventory Court. his was in compliance with the provisions of Section 376 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 ( Goa Succession Act ). However, the Head of the Family has not iled any Initial List of Assets in terms of Section 399 of the Goa Succession Act till date.

(d) On 15.02.2018, the Head of Family, Lakshmi, iled an application to stay the inventory proceedings which is at Exh.D- 33 of the ile of the Inventory Court; this application claimed that the Singapore Court, by i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top