Goa Succession Law: Bombay High Court Holds 'Unity of Inheritance' Universal, Orders Listing of Overseas Assets in Inventory

Panaji: In a significant ruling concerning succession law in Goa, the Bombay High Court has clarified that the principle of 'Unity of Inheritance' under the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, and the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, mandates the listing of a deceased person's entire estate, including assets situated overseas, in local inventory proceedings.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Valmiki Menezes , came while hearing appeals and cross-objections arising from orders passed in an Inventory Proceeding concerning the estate of the late Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar .

Case Background

The case revolves around the distribution of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar , who passed away on January 1, 2016. Married in Goa under the Portuguese Civil Code, his succession is governed by this Code and the subsequent Goa Succession Act, 2012. The estate includes properties in Goa, other parts of India, and overseas.

An Inventory Proceeding was initiated in Goa by his daughter, Chandana Anil Salgaocar , before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. The deceased's widow, Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar , was appointed the Head of the Family. Simultaneously, Lakshmi was granted Letters of Administration for Anil Salgaocar 's estate in proceedings before the Family Justice Courts in Singapore .

Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar , represented by her son and Power of Attorney holder Arjun Anil Salgaocar , sought a stay of the Goa inventory proceedings. She argued that she was in the process of collating details of overseas assets, many of which were under litigation, and that a complete list was necessary for a proper and unified distribution of the entire estate under the principle of Unity of Inheritance. Filing an incomplete list without these details, she contended, could expose her to legal penalties under the Goa Succession Act for concealment.

This application for stay was opposed by Chandana and other heirs, who argued it was a delay tactic and that the Goa proceedings should handle only assets within India, as Singapore assets were being administered separately under Singapore law.

The Inventory Court dismissed the stay application (Order dated 03.07.2018) and a subsequent review application (Order dated 26.02.2019), notably holding that the Inventory Court could not adjudicate disputes over Singapore assets and that proceedings in Goa and Singapore must run simultaneously.

Separately, during the pendency of appeals before the High Court, one of the heirs, Purnima Anil Salgaocar , successfully moved the Inventory Court (Order dated 03.02.2024) to resume the proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Central Bank of Investigation , which suggested interim stays automatically vacate after six months unless extended by a speaking order. This order was also challenged before the High Court.

High Court's Analysis and Findings

Automatic Vacation of Stay: The High Court first addressed the Order of 03.02.2024, noting that the Supreme Court's view in Asian Resurfacing regarding automatic vacation of stays was subsequently held to be incorrect by a Larger Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v/s. State of U.P. Applying the principle that a declaration of law by the Supreme Court relates back, the High Court held that its earlier stay order of 29.03.2019 had not automatically vacated. Consequently, the Inventory Court's order directing resumption of proceedings based on this premise was quashed and set aside.

Maintainability of Stay Application and Unity of Inheritance: Turning to the core issue of staying the inventory proceedings, the High Court examined Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, which allows a stay if the decision of a case depends on the judgment in another pending case or for other justifying grounds. The Court found that this provision remains applicable to inventory proceedings in Goa.

However, the Court scrutinized Lakshmi 's application for stay. While acknowledging the principle of Universal Succession or Unity of Inheritance, as rooted in Roman Law, incorporated in Article 1737 of the Portuguese Civil Code and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jose Paulo Coutinho v/s. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & Anr. and the Bombay High Court in A. P. Fernandes v/s. Annette Blunt Finch , Justice Menezes emphasized that this principle means the entire estate, wherever located, must be listed in the inventory proceeding in Goa.

The Court noted Section 8(3) of the Goa Succession Act, 2012, explicitly states, "the succession is universal and... may be partitioned in Goa, wherever the properties, movable or immovable, are situated."

Despite the principle of Unity of Inheritance applying, the Court found that Lakshmi 's application for stay lacked specific details of the pending litigations overseas or how their outcome would directly affect the Goa inventory proceedings. The application contained only vague averments about litigation and disputed assets.

Justice Menezes stated, "On such vague pleadings, there could be no case made out for raising even an iota of a ground for stay of the present inventory proceeding or to invoke powers vested in the Inventory Court under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Court, 1939." The apprehension of facing penalties for concealment was deemed premature as the initial list of assets had not even been filed.

Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Inventory Court was correct in dismissing the stay application, although not for the reasons stated in its order (which incorrectly held that Singapore assets were not subject to Goa law in the Goa court). The High Court clarified that the dismissal was warranted because sufficient grounds under Article 284 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code were not pleaded.

Maintainability of Review Application: The Court also addressed the Cross-Objections challenging the Inventory Court's power to review its own order. The High Court held that the Goa Succession Act, being a summary proceeding, does not incorporate the general review powers available under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Section 458 of the Goa Succession Act specifically bars the applicability of CPC unless expressly provided.

The Court examined Section 448 of the Goa Succession Act, which provides for "Recision of Partition" through review, but found that these grounds are specific and applicable only to the final judgment of partition, not interlocutory orders.

Accordingly, the High Court ruled that the Inventory Court lacked the power to review its order dismissing the stay application. The dismissal of the review application was upheld by the High Court, but again, not for the reasons given by the Inventory Court (which incorrectly assumed it had review power under Section 448 for non-final orders), but because the review application itself was not maintainable.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal challenging the automatic vacation of stay (AO 7/2025), quashing the Inventory Court's order of 03.02.2024.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal challenging the refusal to stay the inventory proceedings (AO 28/2019) and the Cross-Objections against the dismissal of the review application (Cross-Objections 9/2019). The Court clarified that while the principle of 'Unity of Inheritance' under Goan law necessitates the listing of all assets (including overseas) in the Goa inventory, the specific application for stay lacked sufficient grounds. It also firmly established that the Inventory Court does not possess general review powers akin to the CPC.

The Court directed the parties to appear before the Inventory Court on June 20, 2025, and ordered the Head of the Family, Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar , to file the list of assets, properties, and liabilities of the deceased before the Inventory Court by July 21, 2025.

This judgment reinforces the application of the 'Unity of Inheritance' principle under Goan law to the entirety of an estate, irrespective of geographical location, while also clarifying procedural limitations on review powers within inventory proceedings.

The judgment was pronounced on May 28, 2025.

Case Details: LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR THR . POA ARJUN ANIL SALGAOCAR AND ANR. vs CHANDANA ANIL SALGAOCAR AND 2 ORS. (AO 28/2019, Cross Objections 9/2019, AO 7/2025)