Mrs. Ethel Lourdes D’souza Lobo vs Lucio Neville Jude De Souza & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 September 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 9202 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Citation

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 115 : 2022 INSC 977

Headnote

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 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 ;

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 death of Lt. Guilherme Caetano Souza and his wife, Maria Guilhermina Augusta Lourdes Aguiar Souza. These proceedings were initiated in 1985 for partition of the estate of the said deceased.3 There

View Subscription Plans →