Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Disinheritance Order in Inventory Proceedings Under Portuguese Civil Code — Remands for Proper Adjudication. The court found that the Comarca Judge erred in applying Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code to disinherit the appellants without considering the inapplicability of the provision to their status.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 109
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order passed by the Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem at Margao in Inventory Proceedings No. 82 of 1993, whereby the appellants were disinherited from the estate of the deceased under Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The appellants, who were interested parties in the inventory proceedings, challenged the order on the ground that Article 2053 was not applicable to them as they were not heads of families. They also relied on Articles 1875 to 1884 of the Portuguese Civil Code, which govern disinheritance, and argued that those provisions did not apply to their status. The High Court, after hearing the appellants' counsel (the respondent was absent despite service), found merit in the submissions. The court observed that the Comarca Judge had committed an error in passing the order of disinheritance without proper application of the relevant legal provisions. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Comarca Judge for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The court directed that both sides be given an opportunity to present their cases and that the adjudication be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the writ. No order as to costs was made.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Disinheritance - Article 2053 of Portuguese Civil Code - Applicability - The Comarca Judge disinherited the appellants in Inventory Proceedings under Article 2053, but the provision was not applicable as the appellants were not heads of families. The High Court held that the order was erroneous and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides (Paras 2-5).

B) Succession Law - Inventory Proceedings - Disinheritance - Articles 1875-1884 of Portuguese Civil Code - The appellants contended that the disinheritance provisions under Articles 1875-1884 were not applicable to their status. The High Court accepted the submission and found error in the impugned order (Paras 3-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Comarca Judge erred in disinheriting the appellants under Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code without proper application of the relevant provisions.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem at Margao in Inventory Proceedings No. 82 of 1993 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Comarca Judge for fresh adjudication after giving both sides an opportunity to present their cases. Adjudication shall be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of the writ. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Article 2053 of Portuguese Civil Code
  • Articles 1875-1884 of Portuguese Civil Code
  • Disinheritance
  • Inventory Proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 84

Appeal from Order No. 83 of 2001

2006-11-15

P.V. Kakade, J.

Shri M.B. D'Costa, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.A. Lobo, Advocates for the Appellants

Smt. Lizette Barbosa, Dr. Ivo Barbosa, Smt. Palmira Gonsalves, Mr. Armindo Gonsalves, Mr. Amelia Gonsalves, Mr. Ashley Gonsalves

Mr. Hubert Braganza

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of disinheritance in Inventory Proceedings under Portuguese Civil Code.

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the order disinheriting the appellants from the estate of the deceased.

Filing Reason

The Comarca Judge passed an order disinheriting the appellants under Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code, which the appellants contended was inapplicable to them.

Previous Decisions

The Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem at Margao passed the impugned order in Inventory Proceedings No. 82 of 1993.

Issues

Whether the Comarca Judge erred in applying Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code to disinherit the appellants. Whether the disinheritance provisions under Articles 1875-1884 of the Portuguese Civil Code were applicable to the appellants.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants submitted that Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code is not applicable as they are not heads of families. The appellants further submitted that the disinheritance provisions under Articles 1875-1884 of the Portuguese Civil Code are not applicable to their status.

Ratio Decidendi

The Comarca Judge erred in disinheriting the appellants under Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code without proper application of the law, as the provision was not applicable to the appellants' status. The matter requires fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.

Judgment Excerpts

I am satisfied that there is error committed by the learned Judge while passing such order. Therefore, there is no alternative but to remand the matter to the Comarca Judge for adjudication according to law.

Procedural History

The Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem at Margao passed an order in Inventory Proceedings No. 82 of 1993 disinheriting the appellants under Article 2053 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The appellants appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Portuguese Civil Code: Article 2053, Articles 1875-1884
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Industrial Court Order Directing Permanency for Work Charged Deputy Engineer in Municipal Council — Unfair Labour Practice Established Under MRTU & PULP Act. The court held that a Deputy Engineer appointed on work charged ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Holds Customs Duty Payable on Redemption of Confiscated Goods Under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Interest Under Section 28AB Also Attracts. Redemption fine does not substitute duty; duty and interest are separate liabilities.