An Inventory Court lacks jurisdiction to reopen proceedings without consent when a counter-claim regarding the estate is pending, necessitating a separate suit for amendments.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is disposed of finally.

2. The Petition challenges an order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa in Inventory Proceedings Case No.154/2007/C/A whereby the Civil Court has re-opened the said Inventory Proceedings, purporting to exercise powers under Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (‘The Act’). The second order which is impugned herein is an order of the District Court dated 05.04.2025 by which an Appeal filed by the Petitioner against an application for declaring a Will dated 15.06.2007 of the deceased Blandina Fernandes to be a nullity, has been dismissed; the trial Court, i.e. the Inventory Court, without holding an inquiry, had held by its order dated 29.05.2024 that the Petitioner had failed to prove that the said Will was void or a nullity.

3. The aforementioned Inventory Proceedings was filed in the year 2007 to allot the estate of late Victor Sebastiao Fernandes, the estate leaver. In that Inventory Proceedings, the wife of Victor, Blandina Fernandes was arrayed as an interested party, being moiety, having a share of half of the undivided estate. Victor and Blandina had four children, namely, (i) Jacinta (Respondent No.1), (ii) Agnes (Respondent No.2), (ii) John Edmund Fernandes (Respondent No.3), his wife Francisca (Respondent No.4) and (iv) Maria Martha Vaz, who is the Petitioner herein, married to Agnelo Vaz.

4. The Inventory Proceedings of Victor was concluded in the year 2015, prior to which Blandina passed away in the year 2012. The Inventory Proceedings culminated in an equal share being allotted by the Court to the four siblings, and accordingly the Chart of Partition was drawn up on 12.03.2015, disposing of Inventory Proceedings, allotting one quarter undivided share to each of the children.

5. The Petitioner, Maria, filed a Partition Suit in the year 2018, bearing No.RCS/91/2018/B before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, seeking partition of the quarter share of the undivided estate allotted to her in the Inventory Proceedings by separating the same by metes and bounds from the undivided share of the remaining siblings; in this Suit, the Respondent No.3 and 4 filed a counter-claim on 26.10.2018, in which they claim that before her demise, Blandina had executed and registered a Will dated 15.06.2007, by which she had bequeathed her undivided disposable share in the estate to John (Respondent No.3). The counter-claim raised a challenge to the Chart of Partition/Allotment in the Inventory Proceedings claiming that the same was seeking a declaration that the Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2015 and the Chart of Allotment dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Inventory Court in Inventory Proceedings No.154/2007/C was null and void. In other words, the said John challenged the allotment in the Inventory Proceedings on the ground that the Will was not taken into consideration, rendering the Decree passed by the Inventory Court a nullity, and claiming that he was bequeathed an additional share by his mother, Blandina, to the extent of her disposable quota in the moiety share. This suit and counter-claim are pending disposal.

6. In the meantime, the said John filed an application purporting to invoke powers under Section 446 of the Act, before the Inventory Court, seeking its re- opening and seeking an amendment to the partition of the quarter undivided share to each of his siblings, on the premise that he would be entitled to a higher share under the Will. He placed reliance on the Will. This application came to be filed on 05.08.2021 (Exhibit-I of the record of the Inventory Court).

This application came to be opposed by the Petitioner Maria Martha Vaz and her husband, who filed an application for dismissal of John's application, and for a declaration that the Will was null and void.

7. It is this application that was allowed by the In