Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from inventory proceedings initiated by the applicant, Mrs. Esther Sankwalkar, who sought partition of the estate of her deceased parents. The proceedings were initiated before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, where the applicant claimed that the deceased had left behind movable and immovable properties. However, the respondents (her brothers and other interested parties) objected, contending that no estate remained as the family property had been brought into a partnership firm and the applicant had already received her share upon retiring from the firm. The Cabeca de Casal (administrator) filed a statement certifying that the deceased left no assets and that the applicant's claim was limited to the ₹35 lakhs she received as full and final settlement. The trial court dropped the inventory proceedings, and the High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that order. The applicant then filed the present review application, arguing that the appellate court failed to consider the saving provision of Article 1370 of the Family Laws regarding declarations of the administrator made in his own interest, and that the receipt of money on retirement did not amount to a renunciation of inheritance under Article 2042. She contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The respondents opposed the review, submitting that the applicant had not objected to the administrator's statement, the documentary evidence showed full settlement, and the review was merely a disguised re-hearing of the appeal. The court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case. It perused the deeds, including the Gift Deed of 1973, the Partnership Deed of 1974, the Retirement and Reconstitution Deed of 1989, and the Will of the father, which collectively demonstrated that the property had become partnership asset and that the applicant voluntarily accepted ₹35 lakhs in full and final settlement of her inheritance. The court held that no error was committed in dropping the inventory proceedings based on the unchallenged declaration of the Cabeca de Casal, and that the appellate court had duly considered all contentions. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope and Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLVII Rule 1 - The power of review is limited to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record; it does not permit re-hearing of the appeal as an appellate court. Reliance placed on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Laxmi Jairam Dhond v. Sushila D. Amonkar. Held that the applicant's contentions were addressed in the earlier order, and the review application was an attempt to re-argue the appeal (Paras 4, 11). B) Family Laws - Inventory Proceedings - Declarations of Administrator - Family Laws, Article 1370 - The declarations of the administrator are deemed true unless proved contrary, with a saving for declarations made in his own interest. The Cabeca de Casal's statement that the deceased left no estate was made on oath and was not objected to by the applicant. The trial court and the appellate court correctly relied upon such declaration. Held that no error committed in dropping the inventory proceedings (Paras 5-7). C) Family Laws - Succession - Settlement of Inheritance by Partnership Retirement - Family Laws, Article 2042 - The applicant, having voluntarily retired from the partnership firm that held the family property and accepting ₹35 lakhs as full and final settlement of her inheritance, could not later claim a share in the estate. The Gift Deed, Partnership Deed, Retirement and Reconstitution Deed, and Will collectively established her waiver of further claim. The argument that such settlement amounted to prohibited renunciation under Article 2042 was rejected as misapplied. Held that the applicant was estopped from claiming further rights (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 1/10/2013 passed in Appeal From Order No.66/2013 is vitiated by errors apparent on face of record warranting review, particularly regarding consideration of Article 1370 of Family Laws and the effect of receipt of money on retirement from partnership under Article 2042
Final Decision
Review application dismissed. The court held that no error apparent on face of record; all contentions were considered; documentary evidence established full and final settlement of the applicant's inheritance claim.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on face of record
- Article 1370 of Family Laws
- declarations of administrator deemed true unless made in own interest
- Article 2042 of Family Laws prohibits agreement to renounce succession
- Voluntary settlement of inheritance by partnership retirement and acceptance of full consideration bars further claims to estate
