RAJENDRA TAMBA Vs. RITA ALIAS ANJALI VIJAY TALAULIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the order dtd. 9/7/2019 (below Exhibit D-25) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Panaji in Inventory Proceedings No.97/2014/B. By the impugned order, application Exhibit D-25 filed by the appellants for deciding the validity of the Will dtd. 11/2/2015 executed by Shrimati Manohar Tamba has in fact been allowed and the matter is fixed for inquiry, as regards the validity of the said Will. The contention on behalf of the appellant, however, is that there is no inquiry which is required for determining the validity of the Will in as much as, a widow cannot dispose of her disposable quota by executing a Will after the death of her husband. In other words, according to the appellants, the validity of the Will has to be decided as a pure question of law, which does not require any inquiry.

(2.) The brief facts are that, the aforesaid inventory proceedings have been initiated on the death of Dr. Manohar Krishna Porobo Tamba, who expired on 5/10/2014, in which the appellant no.1 is appointed as the Head of the Family (HoF). The appellant no.1 filed his statement on Oath as well as list of assets, to which the objections have been filed by the interested parties. During the pendency of the inventory proceedings Smt. Shrimati Manohar Tamba, the widow of Dr. Manohar Tamba expired on 21/8/2016. On 20/7/2017 the interested parties disclosed that the deceased Shrimati Manohar Tamba had executed a Will dtd. 11/2/2015 in favour of the present respondent no.3. It is in these circumstances that the appellants filed application exhibit D-25 for deciding the "substantive validity of the Will as a preliminary question of law". It was contended that the Will is executed in violation of the various provisions of law providing for indivisibility of the inheritance and assets of the matrimonial communion. It was contended that the issue ought to be decided as a pure question of law, which does not require recording of any evidence or inquiry. A perusal of the application shows that the appellant reserved their right to press for other objections, in case the Will is found to be valid under the substantive law.

(3.) The application was opposed by the interested parties. It was denied that the aforesaid issue can be decided as a preliminary issue as a pure question of law not requiring any evidence or inquiry.