1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2010 1. Mr. Vero Nunes, son of late Mr. Luis Joao Nunes Dias, major, residing at 202, Saldanha Apartments, Dona Paula Jetty Road, Dona Paula, Goa 2. Mrs. Fatima Nunes, wife of Mr. Vero Nunes, major residing at 202, Saldanha Apartments, Dona Paula Jetty Road, Dona Paula, Goa. .. Petitioners. V e r s u s 1. Mr. Eurico Erasmo Nunes alias Erasmo Eurico Nunes, son of Mr. Luis Jaoao Nunes Dias, major, residing at House No.65, Mala, Portais, Panaji-Goa. 2. Mrs. Ana Rita Vera Nunes, wife of Mr. Eurico Erasmo Nunes alias Erasmo Eurico Nunes, major, residing at House No.65, Mala, Portais, Panaji-Goa 3. Mrs. Lidia Euticia Nunes daughter of Mr. Luis Joao Nunes Dias, major, residing at Venusta Classic, Block C, Behind Canning Factory, Aquem,Alto, Margao, Goa 4. Mr. Querobino Elizabeth Galdino D' Souza, husband of Mrs. Lidia Euticia Nunes, major residing at Venusta Classic, Block C, Behind Canning Factory, Aquem, Alto, Margao, Goa. 5. Mrs. Jocunda Nunes, 2 daughter of Mrs. Luis Joao Nunes Dias, major, residing at House no.99, Deusa, Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, Mormugao, Goa. 6. Mr. Cosme Antonio Eleuterio Azaredo Silveira, husband of Mrs. Jucunda Nunes, major, residing at House No.99, Deusa, Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka Mormugao Goa. 7. Mr. Savio Nunes, son of Mr. Luis Joao Nunes Dias, major residing at Bambolim, Beach Resort, Vadgalim, Bambolim, Tiswadi, Goa 8. Mrs. Zerina Nunes, wife of Mr. Savio Nunes, major, residing at Bambolim Beach Resort, Vadgalim, Bambolim, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. F. E. Noronha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. M. P. Almeida, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Mr. M. B. D'Coosta, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for respondent nos. 7 and 8. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 16 th November, 2010. Pronounced on : 23 rd November,2010. JUDGMENT : Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the 3 parties heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 21st January, 2010 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Nos.90/2009, 91/2009, 92/2009 and 97/2009 passed by District Judge-I, Panaji dismissing the objection taken by the petitioners, who are respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the above appeals regarding the maintainability of the appeals before the District Court. 3. The above four appeals were preferred by the respondents herein challenging the order dated 2nd June, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Inventory Proceeding no.95/1996/A. By the said order, the trial Court disposed of the application for exclusion of assets under Article 1383 of Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, objection to the list of assets, objections regarding maintainability of the inventory proceeding etc. 4. Inventory proceedings were initially valued at Rs.1 Lac. In the course of inventory proceedings, the Administrator valued the assets at Rs. 5.35 Lacs. The petitioners led evidence in which they claimed that the value of the some of the assets was 5 Crores. As stated above, by 4 the impugned order, the trial Court disposed of several objections taken by the interested parties. In appeals preferred by the respondents challenging the said orders dated 2nd June, 2009, the present petitioners, who are respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the said appeals raised objection as to the maintainability of the appeals before the District Court. According to the petitioners, since the value of the assets was more than Rs.20 lacs, the appeals would lie before this Court and not before the District Court. 5. Mr. Noronha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the value of the assets was 5 Crores, the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals since the District Court has jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal valued upto Rs.20 lacs. He further submitted that this Court disposed of Appeal from Order no.12/2007 by order dated 21st June, 2007 directing the trial Court to dispose of all the applications between the parties before the Court proceeds to evaluate the assets. He, therefore, submitted that this Court had entertained earlier Appeal from Order from an order passed by the Inventory Court. Therefore, the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. Learned Counsel further submitted that in terms of Article 319 of Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, this Court and not 5 the District Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order be set aside. 6. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sheela Rodrigues Vs. Lourencinha Ana D'Cruz Rodrigues; AIR 2000 Bombay 97 and Dr. Vishwanath Edo Vs. Ashok Dando; 2000 (1) Goa L.T. I. and has held that the value of the suit determines the appellate forum and not the amount decreed. 7. Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 adopted the argument of Mr. Bhobe. 8. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 submitted that initially, the valuation as mentioned in the application initiating inventory proceeding was Rs.1 Lac and the Administrator had valued the assets at Rs. 5.35 Lacs and as such, the District Court was right in holding its jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. He further submitted that at no point of time, the Inventory Court had valued the assets and as such, merely because the petitioners had 6 claimed that one of the properties was valued at Rs.5 Crores, the same would not be determinative for the purpose of determining the appellate forum. 9. Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 and 8 submitted that inventory proceeding is a suit in a broader sense though in strict sense inventory proceeding cannot be suit in which there is a lis. According to learned Counsel, the appellate forum would depend upon the valuation of the assets involved in the inventory proceedings. 10. In rejoinder, Mr. Noronha placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Zacrias Durate Domingos Pereira, Vs. Camilo Inacio Evaristo Pereira; AIR 1984 Bombay 295 submitted that this Court has held that inventory proceedings are not a suit and they are distinct and separate proceedings from a suit as understood under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and judgment relied upon. 12. The Lower Appellate Court has held that in terms 7 of Section 22 of Goa Civil Courts Act, the appeals would lie before the District Court since the value of subject matter did not exceed Rs. 1 Lac. The Lower Appellate Court also held that in view of recent amendment by which the jurisdiction of the District Court has been increased to Rs. 20 Lacs, the Appellate Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. The Lower Appellate Court also held that actual valuation of the properties involved in the proceedings was not determined by the trial Judge and hence, the valuation disclosed at the time of filing of the inventory, had to be considered as the value for the purpose of entertaining the appeals. The Lower Appellate Court placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sheela Rodrigues (supra) in which the learned Single Judge, after considering the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Zakarias Pereira (supra) held that inventory proceedings are suits for the purpose of section 22 of the Goa Civil Courts Act and if the value of exceeds Rs.1 Lac, the appeal would lie to the High Court considering that at the relevant time the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the appeal was restricted to Rs.1 Lac. In my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the case of Sheela Rodrigues (supra) with which I respectfully agree, is squarely applicable in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, at the time of filing of 8 the inventory proceedings, the assets were valued at Rs.1 Lac and the Administrator valued the assets at Rs. 5.35 lacs. 13. The stage for valuation of the assets by the Inventory Court did not arise and as such, the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. In my opinion, the reliance placed upon article 319 of Portuguese Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners is wholly misplaced. Article 319 would be attracted only the Judge dealing with the inventory proceedings does not agree with the valuation given by the parties and fixes the value. In the present case, this stage has not been reached and, therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Noronha that the Lower Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. The Lower Appellate Court is also right in placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Edo (supra) in which it has been held that the valuation at the time of the suit determines the appellate forum and not the amount decreed. Although the said judgment was in relation to a suit, in the absence of any independent valuation by the Inventory Court, the ratio laid down in the said case would be squarely applicable in the present case. 9 14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, Rule is discharged. Interim order dated 15th February, 2010 stands vacated. The parties shall appear before the Lower Appellate Court for directions on 14th December, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA