The inventory companyrt vide order dated 09.03.1998 held that the property at Bombay was to be excluded from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings at Goa.
He also had a wife named Claudina Lacerda Pereira.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench.
One Joaquim Mariano Pereira JMP had three daughters viz.,
Both the other daughters were served numberice of the probate proceedings.
This appeal was allowed on 08.08.2008.
On 27.04.1981 his daughter Virginia Pareira was appointed as Cabeca De Casal administrator .
Respondent number1 and her husband respondent number2 challenged the said order of the inventory companyrt before the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench.
On 06.05.1957 he bequeathed this property at Bombay to his youngest daughter, Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, Respondent No.1.
Thereafter, Virginia Pareira died.
It is true that they provided for the companytinuance of old laws but that companyld only be from the date from which they came into force, i.e., from March 5, 1962.
He lived in Bombay and purchased a property in Bombay in the year 1955.
He filed this application and the inventory companyrt on 15.10.1999 allowed the application and held that the property at Bombay should be included in the list of assets.
She prepared the inventory of the properties and in these proceedings the house in Bombay which had been bequeathed in favour of the respondent number1 was listed at Sl.
The respondent objected to the inventory on the ground that the property situated at Bombay was number governed by the inventory proceedings.
He bequeathed Rs.
JMP died on 02.08.1967.
1 Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira ML , Respondent No.1 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Virginia Pereira and 3 Maria Augusta Antoneita Pereira Date 2019.09.13 164953 IST Reason Fernandes.
The appellant, who is one of the legal representatives of Virginia Pareira filed objections to the removal of the property at Bombay from the inventory and sought the inclusion and valuation of the said property to work out what was the disposable portion and what was the legitime.
The probate of the Will dated 06.05.1957 was granted by the High Court of Bombay, at Goa on 12.09.1980.
Rejecting the companytention, this Court held as follows But this is number all.
However, he withdrew the appeal with liberty to file a fresh application before the inventory companyrt for inclusion of these assets.
Hence, this appeal by the appellant.
The Ordinance and the Act of 1962 on which the petitioner relies came into force from March 5, 1962.
She filed a fresh list of properties and excluded the property at Bombay.
Then respondent number1 was appointed as administrator.
3000/ each to his other two daughters.
Goa was liberated from Portuguese rule on 19.12.1961.
His wife expired on 31.10.1960 when he was still alive.
Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the Ordinance and the Act, referred to above.
Deepak Gupta, J. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situate outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa or the Indian succession Act, 1925 is the question which arises for decision in this appeal.
