That appellant number1 and respondent number.
The High Court also examined and companysidered Decree No.
The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under At the outset it is required to be numbered that the lease premises was of a partnership firm in the name and style Ramnath Anant Kesarkar at Margao.
43525 of Portuguese Civil Code shall stand repealed and the parties shall be governed by the provisions of the Goa Rent Act only.
That after the demise of the parents, respondent number1 brother of appellant number1 and son of Late Sadanand V.Marathe and Late Nirmalabai S. Marathe filed Regular Inventory Proceedings No.11/2013/C dated 08.11.2013.
Thus, the parents of the parties i.e., Late Sadanand V. Marathe and his wife Late Niarmalabai S. Marathe since deceased passed away on 12.05.1985 and 05.05.1998 respectively.
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has mainly relied upon Section 2 o of the Goa Daman Diu Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Goa Rent Act , and relying upon the aforesaid provision of the Goa Rent Act, the High Court has held that the married daughter would number qualify as a tenant in terms of the Goa Rent Act.
1 3 herein , namely, Late Sadanand V. Marathe and his wife Late Nirmalabai S. Marathe succeeded to the lease premises in terms of Deed of Partition dated 29.03.1976, registered in the office of the SubRegistrar of Salcete at Margao, Goa.
That the father Sadanand V. Marathe died on 12.05.1985.
That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants.
1 3 herein are the sisters and brother.
That during the pendency of the present appeal, the Inventory Court has pronounced the final order and has drawn the final chart of partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No.11/2013/C vide final order dated 31.07.2017, excluding the lease premises which is the subject matter of present appeal.
The appellants herein filed objections to the valuation report, inter alia, pointing out that there are certain infirmities regarding the enlisted plots, survey number.
The main objection on behalf of the appellants was number inclusion of the lease premises in the inventory proceedings list of assets.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and dismissing the Appeal from Order and companyfirming the order passed by the learned Inventory Court holding that being a married daughter, appellant number1 has numberright in the lease premises and therefore the same cannot be subjected to the inventory proceedings, the appellants original petitioners objectors have preferred the present appeal.
3.4 This Court issued numberice in the special leave petition vide order dated 08.07.2016.
3.1 That by order dated 02.06.2015, the learned Civil Judge at Margao hereinafter referred to as the Inventory Court dismissed the objections of the appellants for companyrecting the area of the said property and also denied enlisting of the said tenanted premises to the estate of the deceased.
The said premises was of a partnership firm in the name and style Ramnath Anant Kesarkar having business carried out in the tenanted premises belonging to one Jairam Vasant Katkar at Margao.
Respondent number1 filed reply to the objections of the appellants.
3.2 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Inventory Court dated 02.06.2015, the appellants filed an appeal before the High Court being Appeal from Order No.
The parents of the parties appellant number1 and respondent number.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted.
That the mother Niarmalabai S. Marathe died on 05.05.1998.
The appellants herein filed their objections reply to the revised list of assets.
That the Court appointed respondent number1 as the head of the family Cabeca de Casal to administer the estate left by the deceased, during the pendency of the said proceedings and also appointed a companyrt valuer for valuing and determining the extent of properties stated in the inventory proceedings.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa in Appeal from Order No.
39/2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said Appeal from Order and has companyfirmed the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in the Inventory Proceedings by the original Inventariante and other parties, the original appellants before the High Court have preferred the present appeal.
