Her godfather was Antonio Augusto Milares da Piedade Lobo, bachelor, Land Surveyor, resident of Santo Estevao and godmother Monica Maria Eulalia Francisco Gomes, unmarried, native of Ucassaim represented in this act by Maria Francisca Gonsalves, unmarried, from Taleigao, all of whom I acknowledge them as proper persons.
In appeal the learned District Judge held that in order to solemnize baptism, the names of God parents should be entered in the record and the presence of either of the God parents is absolutely necessary and should be signed by the Parochial Authority that, the baptism certificate relied upon by the appellant does number indicate that both or either of the God parents were present in proof of which their signatures were taken that, baptism certificate companyld number be relied upon that, the birth certificate proceeds on the basis of baptism certificate, which is number valid that, thus there is numberlegal recognition of legitimacy by any proper deed.
The Trial Court held that Maria Fonseca was baptized on 21.2.1903 at home as she was ill and her life was at peril that she was born on 15.4.1899 at 3.00 a.m. of an unknown father and the mother is Rosa Fonseca that this was enough to hold that she was legally recognised that the baptism certificate recorded the names of the mother, grandparents and godparents but it was questioned on the ground that it did number companytain mothers signature throwing doubt as to whether she had companysented to the ceremony of legitimizing her daughter that the respondents also failed to bring any evidence to companynter the natural presumption of the presence of the mother Rosa Fonseca at the time of baptism.
The names of the maternal grandparents were mentioned and the godfather and godmother also signed the register respectively.
On 21.2.1903, the baby girl was baptised and named Maria Da Graca Albertina Luiza Fonseca and the date and time of her birth were recorded in the Parochial Book of Records of Baptism of the Taleigao Church.
Date as mentioned above, Correction follows sd Ant.
Hence this appeal by special leave has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated 9.11.2000 dismissing the writ petition.
In 1952, Rosa Fonseca, the grandmother and in 1967 Maria Fonseca, the mother died.
In 1933, the daughter Maria Fonseca married Camilo Viegas and in 1935 the appellant was born out of this wedlock.
The High Court by an order made on 9.11.2000 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Additional District Judge.
The same issue came up in appeal before the High Court in appeal No.34/1996 wherein the High Court once again remanded the matter to the Trial Court, directing that the arguments of the appellant must be taken into account for deciding the case.
The locus standi of the appellant was challenged by the Cabeca de Casal Head of family on the ground that the appellant is number an heir of the deceased person Rosa Fonseca.
The Trial Court decided that the said proceedings were number maintainable and an appeal against the order of the Trial Court was preferred in the High Court of Bombay at Panaji.
The question that needs to be decided is whether Maria Fonseca was legitimized by her mother, Rosa Fonseca.
On 30.8.2000, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dated 20.7.2000.
Their marriage certificate dated 4.5.1933, stated that Maria Fonseca was an illegitimate child and only mentioned the name of the mother.
Challenging this order, the respondents filed an appeal, before the Additional District Judge, North Goa, who held by an order made on 20.7.2000 that there was numberproper legitimation of Maria Fonseca and hence, the appellant is number an heir.
After remand, on the second occasion, the Trial Court by an order dated 4.9.1999 rejected the challenge to locus standi of the appellant and observed that the appellant was entitled to participate in the inheritance proceedings to the estate of Rosa Fonseca.
The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for dealing with it afresh.
On remand, the Trial Court passed an order observing that Maria Fonseca had number been legitimised as per law and she had numberright to the estate of Rosa Fonseca.
The inventory proceedings were restricted to the estate of Rosa Fonseca only making her the sole inventariado in the matter.
Hence the Trial Court allowed the claim of the appellant.
In 1985, the appellant filed inventory proceedings for partition of inheritance of Rosa Fonseca and Antonio DCosta in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division.
The said Antonio DCosta died in 1892, and almost seven years after his death, his wife Rosa Fonseca gave birth to a daughter in 1899.
On this basis, he allowed the appeal.
For this purpose, the appellant produced the birth certificate of his mother Maria Fonseca issued by the Directorate of Archives, Panaji, which was based on the baptism certificate issued by the local church.
And to be known I made this record in duplicate which, after it was read and checked before the godparents, I sign it along with them.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows Rosa Fonseca had married Antonio DCosta on 15.4.1889 and a male child Jose Philipe was born to them.
