LIZARDA GONSALVES Vs. BALTASAR GONSALVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of Inventory Proceedings No. 43/2001 decided by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji rejecting the objections of the interested parties raised in the course of the said proceedings. The applicant had filed the proceedings seeking indulgence of the Court on the ground that he was an interested party and objected to the initiation of the inventory proceedings by the appellants on the ground that prior to the death of Manuelinho and Piedade Gonsalves somewhere in the year 1960 and 1961, the father of the interested parties, Teodor Gonsalves was allowed by his parents, Inventariados to construct a house in the property surveyed under No. 185/6. He was also given possession of the land surveyed under No. 185/6 as well as of the plot now bearing Survey No. 183/12. Accordingly, late father of the interested parties constructed a house in Survey No. 185/6 in the year 1961 and continued to possess the said property during the life time of his parents. According to them, the property bearing Survey No. 183/12 was jointly collateral by the said Teodar Gonsalves and Xavier Gonsalves and accordingly, their names have been recorded as tenants in the other right's column of the survey records. On these and other grounds, the interested parties claimed right in the property. In support of their claim, they filed certain documents on record. Plea of the parties came to be challenged by the applicants. Upon adjudication of the dispute, the trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no judicial settlement and arrangement on distribution over the inheritance of the deceased and the oral family settlement and arrangement resolving the dispute in the proceedings of the nature could not have a force of law to object the maintainability of the inventory proceedings and on such a ground, the plea of the interested parties came to be rejected.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants raised an objection to the findings recoded by the trial Court mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to them to lead oral evidence in support of their claim. In that regard, my attention was invited to Article 1374 of Family Laws of Goa, Daman and Diu along with Article 1383. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Article 1380 while submitting that even though the learned trial Judge did not specifically mention, the only course available for the appellants was to file a separate suit in order to get their alleged right established.