HELEN CARVALHO Vs. MARIA TERESA DA CUNHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 28. 11. 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Inventory Proceeding No. 90/02/c. Few facts which give rise to the present appeal as narrated by the appellant may have to be stated. Inventory Proceeding No. 90/02/c came to be instituted upon the death of Jose da Cunha. Respondent 1 is the moiety holder of the deceased. The appellant and respondent 5 are daughters of the deceased; respondent 2 is the son of the deceased; respondents 3 and 4 are the spouses of respondent 2 and the appellant respectively. The subject matter of the Inventory proceeding is a property consisting of land admeasuring 4650 sq. metres situated at Ucassaim and a house therein admeasuring about 374 sq. m.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the valuer appointed by the Court valued the said property at Rs. 2,00,000/on 13. 01. 03. On 24. 02. 03 the appellant, by application complained about the under valuation of the said property by the valuer and asserted that the value was not less than Rs. 6,00,000/. On 14. 08. 03 the valuation of the said property submitted by the appellant on 24. 02. 03 was accepted by the Court. On 14. 11. 03 respondent 1 made an application offering a bid of Rs. 7,00,000/. Respondent 1 prayed for auction of the property and requested that a date be fixed for the auction. This application is at Exh. 17. On 14. 11. 03 the appellant by application (Exh. 18) prayed that the said property be put to auction between the parties. On 20. 12. 03 the appellant by an application prayed that the date of auction be postponed. Again on 05. 02. 04 the appellant made a similar request. The Advocate for respondent 1 objected to this and prayed that the auction may be fixed.

(3.) THEREAFTER the matter was adjourned on numerous occasions from 11. 02. 04 to 29. 11. 04 for reply/arguments on applications (Exhs. 17 and 18 ). On 29. 04. 04 the Court again fixed the matter for reply/arguments on applications (Exhs. 17 and 18) on 6. 05. 04. According to the appellant the Court did not fix any date for holding auction.