SURENDRA BALKRISHNA NAIK Vs. PRAKASH BALKRISHNA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) RULE . Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned appearing for the Respondent, waives service.

(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Inventory Proceedings were initiated in the year 1982 upon the death of the father of the Petitioner and the Respondent. In the said proceedings, the mother of the Petitioner and the Respondent was appointed Cabeca-de-Casal and a list of assets came to be filed by the said Cabeca-de-Casal which was opposed by the Petitioner herein. The learned Judge directed inquiries to be held with regard to such disputes raised in connection with the list of assets. Apparently, the matter came before this Court challenging such Order and in the said proceedings, an Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate on the dispute between the parties. An Award came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator and, according to Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as per the Award, item nos. 12 and 13 were held to be assets of the estate leavers. It appears that in the meanwhile, the said Inventory Proceedings proceeded by appointing Respondent as Cabeca-de-Casal and, ultimately, though some objections were raised by the Petitioner with regard to the inclusion of the said two items, the proceedings came to be finally homologated of the partition which resulted in the conclusion of the proceedings. In the meanwhile, apparently the Petitioner filed an application for additional partition of the estate on the premise that the said two item nos. 12 and 13 were not partitioned. The said applications were opposed by the Respondent. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Vasco da Gama, by Order dated 19.09.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 12/2011/A in Inventory Proceeding No. 7/85/A, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned District Judge. Apparently, in the Appeal Memo, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the Appeal was valued at Rs.25,00,000/-. The learned District Judge by the impugned Order dated 14.08.2012, noted that on the basis of such valuation of the Appeal, the District Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and, consequently, the Appeal came to be dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.