Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji on 17.7.2004, following a remand by the High Court in Appeal from Order No. 36/2002 dated 22.8.2002. The appellant No.1 had initiated Inventory Proceedings No.81/96/A before the trial court, which were disposed of on 27.12.2000. In that order, the trial court held that the assets mentioned in the deed of partition dated 12.11.1964 could not be listed in the inventory proceedings, and if the correctness of the deed was disputed, the remedy lay in a civil court under Article 1380 of the Procedure Code and Article 2087 of the Code. It also held that since all assets were in possession of respondent No.1 (Harischandra), he should be appointed as Cabesa de Casal under Article 2068(2) read with Article 2070. The appellant challenged that order, and the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand, the trial court again appointed respondent No.1 as Cabesa de Casal without addressing the appellant's objections regarding the deed of partition. The High Court found that the trial court had not complied with the remand order, which required it to first decide whether the assets in the deed could be included in the inventory. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the issue of the validity of the deed and the scope of assets before appointing a Cabesa de Casal.
Headnote
A) Inventory Proceedings - Appointment of Cabesa de Casal - Deed of Partition - The trial court appointed respondent No.1 as Cabesa de Casal without considering the appellant's challenge to the deed of partition dated 12.11.1964, which the appellant contended was not binding. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have first decided the validity of the deed and the scope of assets before appointing a Cabesa de Casal, as per the earlier remand order. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Remand Order - Compliance - The High Court's earlier remand order dated 22.8.2002 required the trial court to decide the issue of whether the assets mentioned in the deed of partition could be listed in inventory proceedings. The trial court's subsequent order appointing a Cabesa de Casal without deciding that issue was held to be contrary to the remand order and liable to be set aside. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could appoint a Cabesa de Casal without first adjudicating the validity of the deed of partition and the objections raised by the appellant regarding the assets to be included in the inventory.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 17.7.2004 set aside. Trial court directed to decide the issue of whether the assets mentioned in the deed of partition dated 12.11.1964 can be listed in the inventory proceedings, and only thereafter appoint a Cabesa de Casal.
Law Points
- Inventory proceedings
- Cabesa de Casal
- Deed of partition
- Article 1380 of Procedure Code
- Article 2087 of Code
- Article 2068(2)
- Article 2070
- Remand
- Civil Court remedy
