LexMRS. ETHEL LOURDES D’SOUZA LOBO versus LUCIO NEVILLE JUDE DE SOUZA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 115 MRS. ETHEL LOURDES D’SOUZA LOBO v. LUCIO NEVILLE JUDE DE SOUZA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9202 of 2019) SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] Portuguese Civil Procedure Code – Arts. 1369, 1379, 1391, 1412, 1416, 1417(c) & 1736, 1737, 2126, 2127 – Inventory proceedings were initiated on account of death of ‘G’ and his wife – These proceedings were initiated for partition of the estate of the deceased – Estates comprised three items of immovable property – Property in dispute is item no.1 – In licitation of the said property, ‘H’ gave the highest bid – ‘H’ was also Cabeca de Casal (administrator) – He died – By then, he had not deposited any amount towards bid offered by him – Claim for reauction was resisted by heirs of ‘H’, who contended they could continue the proceedings and were entitled to item no. 1 – However, who supported reauction contended that that H’s right to participate, and claim the specific item of property, at the appropriate stage-when owelty was to be demanded, was a mere personal right, which extinguished upon his death – Held: In the instant case, it cannot be said that H’s right to participate, and claim the specific item of property, at the appropriate stage - when owelty was to be demanded, was a mere personal right, which extinguished upon his death – The entitlement to bid in the licitation process was not a personal right, but in his capacity as a member of the family, of which he had been constituted as the Cabeca de Casal – If all other items are heritable by his heirs and legal representatives (as there is no dispute that they are, because they step into his shoes) an entirely different conclusion is unsupportable in regard to the item of property for which he bid successfully, but for which no demand was made, for payment of any amount – This was because, the final chart of partition containing the excess payments to be made, by one or other members of the family had not been prepared; no demand for payment or deposit of owelty was concededly made by any member of the family – However, that [2022] 18 S.C.R. 115 115 A B C D E F G H 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R. did not mean that the highest bid by H was, in some inexplicable manner, effaced – His position and right as a successful bidder, and his obligation to pay the concerned amount, when called upon to do so, were heritable by his heirs and legal representatives – Appeals dismissed. Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & Ors. (2019) 20 SCC 85 : [2019] 12 SCR 390 ; Zacarias Durate Domoingos Pereira v. Camilo Inacil Evaristo Pereira, AIR 1984 Bom 295 ; T.S. Swaminatha Odayar v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore [1957] 1 SCR 775 ; Baburao Karekar v. Vilas Atmaram Bandodkar (2015) 12 SCC 659 ; Motibai Sarvotham Pai Cano & Ors. v. Maria Elsa Do Perpetuo Socorro Mota & Ors. 1994(2) Bom. C.R. 628 ; Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat v. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar [1975] 1 SCR 534 ; Umabai & Anr. v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 243: [2005] 3 SCR 521 ; Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Nana Dinkar Yadav Tanpura & Ors 2021 (9) SCC 45 : [2021] 8 SCR 151 ; Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and Ors. 2020 (4) SCC 321 : [2020] 2 SCR 983 ; Amirtham Kudumbah v. Sarnam Kudumban [1991] 2 SCR 389 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2019] 12 SCR 390 referred to Para 3 [1957] 1 SCR 775 referred to Para 15 [1975] 1 SCR 534 referred to Para 22 [2005] 3 SCR 521 referred to Para 23 [2021] 8 SCR 151 referred to Para 23 [2020] 2 SCR 983 referred to Para 23 [1991] 2 SCR 389 referred to Para 23 A B C D E F G H 117 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9202 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2012 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.671 of 2010. With Civil Appeal No. 9203 of 2019. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Keane Sardinha, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Swetank Shantanu, Pratap Shanker, Ankit Kumar, Jyoti Kumar Singh, R. Ayyam Perumal, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The present appeals arises from a judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench1. The dispute arises out of inventory proceedings2 under Chapter XVII by Articles 1369 to 1447 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code (hereafter “the Code”). 2. Inventory proceedings in the present case arose and were initiated on account of the d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.