MARIA MARTA VAZ AND ANR v. JACINTA PEREIRA AND 3 ORS
Interpretation of Section 446 of the Goa Succession Act: Inventory Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Reopen Proceedings When a Partition Suit Based on a Will is Pending.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:2435
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012; Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012; Section 447 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012; Section 445 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012; Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: After the conclusion of inventory proceedings for the estate of Victor Sebastiao Fernandes, his wife Blandina passed away. The inventory proceedings had allotted equal shares to their four children. Later, one of the children, Maria, filed a partition suit. Another child, John, filed a counterclaim asserting that Blandina had executed a Will bequeathing her share to him, which was not considered in the original inventory proceedings. John also applied to reopen the inventory proceedings under Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, to amend the partition based on the Will. Maria opposed this and sought a declaration that the Will was void. The Inventory Court allowed John's application, leading to Maria challenging this order and the subsequent dismissal of her application to declare the Will a nullity.
- Procedural Posture: Maria filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the order of the Inventory Court that reopened the inventory proceedings and the order of the District Court dismissing her appeal against the Inventory Court's refusal to declare the Will a nullity. The High Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Did the Inventory Court have the jurisdiction under Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries And Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, to reopen the inventory proceedings based on John's application, considering that he had already filed a counterclaim in a partition suit challenging the original partition and asserting rights under the Will? Does Section 446 allow for a complete reopening of inventory proceedings or is it limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors?
- Holding: The High Court held that the Inventory Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen the inventory proceedings under Section 446. The order reopening the proceedings was quashed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 446 allows for amendment of a partition only by agreement of the parties or to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. It does not permit a complete reopening of the inventory proceedings, especially when a party has already filed a suit (in this case, a counterclaim) challenging the partition based on a subsequent fact (the Will). The Court stated that John's counterclaim in the partition suit was the appropriate remedy under Section 447 of the Act. Since John had already availed of this remedy, the Inventory Court should have relegated the parties to the decision in the suit. The Court also emphasized that the powers under Section 446 are meant to correct the Court's own mistakes (clerical or arithmetical errors), not to re-evaluate the entire partition based on new claims. The Court clarified that if John succeeds in his suit, the final Chart of Partition in the Inventory Proceedings would have to be corrected under Section 445 of the Act to give effect to the decree of the Court.
🔒 For Members Only