ANISIA COUTINHO ALIAS ANISIA SEQUEIRA Vs. SANTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J.F. Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The above Appeal challenges the Order dated 02.02.2012, whereby an application filed by the Respondents dated 26.03.2010 seeking three reliefs namely removal of the Appellant-Cabeca de Casal and discard the statement of oath dated 27.08.2009 and also to drop the Inventory Proceedings came to be disposed. By the impugned Order, the learned Judge dropped the proceedings as the same were not filed by the heir of the deceased.

(2.) Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Order as, according to him, it is not in dispute that the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 have married under the communion of assets and, as such, the Appellant has a right/interest in the estate of the deceased. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it is also not in dispute that the deceased has expired during the subsistence of the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 and, consequently, merely because the divorce petition has been disposed of by Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2007, does not disentitle the Appellant to her right to the estate of the deceased. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has dismissed the application only on the ground that the Appellant is not the heir of the deceased which is unsustainable.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, pointed out that as the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 has been dissolved, the communion between them also ceases. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the divorce has been confirmed in the year 2007, the question of filing any Inventory Proceedings in the year 2010 is totally unsustainable. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellant is not a heir of the deceased and, as such, the question of initiating any Inventory Proceedings on her own does not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the heirs of the deceased are not interested to proceed with the Inventory Proceedings and, as such, the Appellant cannot force a partition on the said heir. Learned Counsel, as such submits, that the learned Judge has rightly passed the impugned Order and, as such, no interference is called for therein.