LAXMIBAI NARAYAN PRABHU Vs. MEDHA NAGUESH PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2, 3(a) and 3(b). None for the Respondent no. 1, though served.

(2.) The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 29.08.2013 on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) Shri M. B. D'Costa, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Suit filed by the Respondents is on the ground that she is the heir of her father-inlaw who is admittedly the owner of the suit properties. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the husband of the Respondent no. 1 expired in the year 1984 and her father-in-law expired in the year 1992 and the said son also predeceased his mother. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that on plain reading of the provisions of Article 1969 of the Portuguese Civil Code, it clearly specifies that the rights of a deceased husband devolve upon the parents who are the ascendants of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that admittedly during the subsistence of the marriage, no rights to the property accrued on or belonged to the husband of the Respondent no. 1. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the moiety extinguished upon the death of the husband of the Respondent no. 1 and, as such, the question of any right to inherit accruing after the death of the husband is beyond any stretch of imagination. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the parents succeeded to the inheritance of the husband, the question of the widow being the legal heir or successor of the parents would not at all arise. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the plaint filed by the Respondent no. 1 which, according to him, clearly shows that the moiety claim of the Respondent no. 1 is based on the fact that being the widow of the deceased husband, the Respondent no. 1 was entitled to succeed to the inheritance of the parents-in-law. The learned Senior Counsel has, thereafter, taken me through the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court to point out that the learned Judge has blatantly misread the relevant provisions of law to come to the conclusion that the Respondent no. 1 was a legal heir of the parents-in-law. The learned Senior Counsel as such points out that the Impugned Judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.