1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 99 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2007 Mr. Manguesh Gajanan Harmalkar and another. ... Appellants versus Gajanan Harmalkar, Cunchelim, Bardez, Goa. ... Respondent Mr. I. Aga, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. Challenge in this appeal is to the Order dated 1-9-2007 which has been passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa on an application dated 28-6-2007 filed by the Administrator. The Inventory Proceedings were filed upon the death of the mother and who has left behind one daughter and three sons, one of whom is the Appellant No.1 herein. When the application was filed, neither the statement on oath of the Administrator was 2 recorded nor list of assets was filed. There is no doubt that by virtue of being appointed as an Administrator, the Respondent herein would be entitled to administer the properties of the inheritance. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that now a list of assets has been filed but neither of the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties, were able to produce a copy of the same for the perusal of the Court. In case the Respondent was appointed as an Administrator on 20-6-2007 the least which was expected of him was to state in the application dated 28-6-2007 as to whether there was any interference and if so when, in the properties of the inheritance from any of the children who were parties to the said Inventory Proceedings. There is no whisper of such statement. Therefore, there was no cause of action disclosed in the application to grant the relief sought for and as such the learned trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned Order, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned Order therefore is set aside. Mr. I. Aga, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants states that the Appellants will not interfere in the administration of the properties. The statement is accepted. In case there is any interference, from any other quarter, needless to observe that the Respondent as Administrator would be free to apply to the Court for necessary reliefs in accordance with law. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD