... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.260 OF 2009 Shri Narayan Shamba Kubal, son of late Shamba Kubal, r/o Thorli Chandai, Pirna, Bardez, Goa. … Petitioner v e r s u s Shri Ankush Pandurang Halarnkar, r/o Sangavan, Ozari, Pernem, Goa. … Respondent Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2 and 4. CORAM: SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE: 4th MAY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner was appointed as cabeca-de- casal (cc)/Administrator of the estate of Shamba Yesso Kubal and his wife Indira Shambha Kubal and ... 2 ... Pandurang Yesso Kubal and his wife Savitri Pandurang Kubal. The appointment was made on 31.01.2005. A date for recording the petitioner's statement on oath under Article 1369 of the Portuguese Civil Code remained to be fixed. The petitioner also did not apply for getting the same fixed. The matter remained at that until 22.02.2007 when notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner's Advocate for the purpose of making a statement on oath by the petitioner. The matter was fixed on 11.04.2007. The notice came to be issued on 27.02.2007. Notices were issued well in time. The petitioner was to appear for making his statement on oath. 3. On 11.04.2007, the petitioner as well as his Advocate remained absent. The statement on oath was not made though the petitioner was notified for that purpose. The petitioner was directed to take steps. The Inventory Proceedings were adjourned for steps on 04.07.2007. 4. On 04.07.2007 the petitioner's Advocate was ... 3 ... present. The petitioner's presence is not noted. Since the petitioner was not himself present he obviously could not take oath of office. An application came to be made by the respondent as an interested party to be appointed as Cabeca-de-casal. The matter was adjourned for the petitioner's reply to 13.08.2007. On 13.08.2007, the petitioner again remained absent. His Advocate was also absent. His reply was not filed. The Court observed that the petitioner was not interested in carrying out his responsibility as Cabeca-de-casal. Hence the petitioner was removed from the post of Cabeca-de- casal. 5. The petitioner has challenged his removal. The noting shows that the petitioner was appointed upon his own application. When he was appointed he was represented through his Advocate. The notice therefore, upon his advocate was rightly issued. The petitioner was accordingly notified as per Article 1369. Despite he being notified since 27.02.2007, he did not take steps. He did not even reply to the ... 4 ... other application taken out for his removal and for appointing another person. 6. His Advocate contends that the petitioner was not healthy at the relevant time. Cause has not been shown by the petitioner to the learned Judge. The removal is more than two and a half years after the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner has not taken a single step upon his appointment. He has not taken oath on office upon himself. The petitioner's challenged his removal cannot be sustained. The order relating to his removal cannot be interfered with. 7. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent. The respondent is stated to be the son-in-law of Pandurang Kubal. Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent fairly concedes that the respondent could not have been appointed as cabeca-de-casal. One of the heirs of the estate leaver only can be appointed. Hence the appointment of the respondent ... 5 ... deserves to be set aside. Upon the removal of the petitioner, the Court will have to consider the appointment of another cabeca-de-casal. The petitioner's removal having been seen to be correctly made after sufficient notice and upon seeing that the petitioner did not take any steps and did not even show cause against his removal, the removal cannot be set aside. Hence the following order: O R D E R The order of removal stands. The order of appointment of the respondent as cabeca-de-casal is by consent, set aside. The learned Judge shall appoint another cabeca-de-casal in place of the petitioner upon complying with due legal procedure. Writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.