Shri Rohidas Datta Porob vs Smt. Hirabai Angle and Others

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri M. D''Souza, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1,2(a) to 2(g) and Shri A. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 4, 5(a) to 5(f). Respondent No. 9 is present in person. The learned Counsel seeks leave to delete the name of respondent no.3 from the cause title. Leave granted. The name of respondent no.3 stands deleted from the cause title at the risk of the appellant.

Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

The above appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa dated 21/12/2011 whereby the objections raised by the respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 & 4 to the additional statement filed by the appellant came to be accepted and the appellant was precluded from giving any additional statement in the inventory proceedings.

During the course of the hearing of the above appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that in the earlier proceedings before this Court being Appeal From Order No.24/2010 which came to be disposed of on the basis of the minutes of order dated 18/04/2011, it was inter alia contemplated therein that until the inquiry is concluded by the Inventory Court the appellant would function as the administrator of the estate/cabeca de casal. It is not in dispute that the inquiry as ordered by this Court has not been completed and the proceedings are in progress. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed an additional statement before the learned Judge which came to be opposed to respondents no.1 & 2 on one hand and respondents no.4 & 5 on the other hand. The objections were essentially that the appellant had not taken the oath of office and that he was not permitted by this Court to give any additional statement pending the disposal of the inquiry. By order dated 30/04/2012 this Court directed the appellant to take the oath of office in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is not disputed that such oath has been administered to the appellant. Hence, the first objection of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to the filing of the additional statement does not survive.

With regard to the second objection raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that such additional statement was not permitted to be given by the appellant in terms of the minutes of order, I find that once it is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a cabeca de casal in the said proceedings until the disposal of the inquiry as directed therein the appellant should be permitted to perform his function in accordance with law. The appellant, as such, is entitled to file an additional statement and in case such additional statement is filed the respondent naturally would be entitled to raise such objections in accordance with law. Apart from that, any functions exercised by the petitioner as cabeca de casal during the pendency of the inquiry before the learned Inventory Court shall be subject to the final result of such inquiry.

As such, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In view of the above, I pass the following order

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 21/12/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The appellant is permitted to perform his functions as cabeca de casal and even file additional statements which shall be dealt with in the light of the observations made herein above.

(iii) All the functions performed by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the inquiry as directed in terms of the minutes of order.

(iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.