[Goa Succession Act] 'Inventory Court Cannot Re-open Entire Proceedings U/S 446 To Create Fresh Allotment': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Inventory Court has no jurisdiction under Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012, to re-open concluded inventory proceedings for the purpose of creating a fresh allotment of shares. The Court clarified that Section 446 permits only limited amendments by consent of parties or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and does not empower the Inventory Court to undertake a substantive re-adjudication of rights or re-partition the estate once the inventory proceedings have attained finality.

Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition challenging an order by which the Inventory Court purported to reopen the inventory proceedings under Section 446. The inventory proceedings, initiated in 2007 following the death of Victor Sebastiao Fernandes, had culminated in 2015 in a final chart of partition. Subsequently, in a separate partition suit filed by the petitioner in 2018 seeking division by metes and bounds, Respondent No.3 filed a counter-claim relying on a Will dated 15 June 2007 executed by the deceased's wife, claiming an enhanced share. While the civil suit and counter-claim were pending, Respondent No.3 moved an application before the Inventory Court in 2021 seeking re-opening of the concluded inventory proceedings under Section 446 on the basis of the said Will, which application was allowed by the impugned order.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 445, 446 and 447 of the Act and held that where parties do not consent to amendment of a final partition, the only permissible remedy is a suit for amendment under Section 447. The Court noted that Respondent No.3 had already availed of this remedy by filing a counter-claim in the pending civil suit, seeking a declaration that the original chart of partition was null and void. Having elected to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 447, the respondent could not simultaneously invoke Section 446 to reopen the inventory proceedings.

“The counter-claim filed by John in Special Civil Suit No.91/2018/B is precisely the suit contemplated under Section 447. Having exercised this option by filing a counter-claim, the Inventory Court ought not to have entertained any application under Section 446 of the Act and ought to have relegated the parties to the decision in the Suit,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that the proviso to Section 446 is confined to correction of errors committed by the Court itself, and cannot be stretched to permit a wholesale reopening of inventory proceedings or adjudication on the validity and effect of a Will. It observed:

“The moment parties dispute the amendment claimed by any one of them, correction/amendment of the partition can be realised only by filing a Suit under Section 447, which remedy the Interested Party John has already availed of.”

Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 15 October 2022 passed by the Inventory Court and held that the inventory proceedings shall be treated as closed, subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit. The petition was partly allowed.

Case Title: Maria Marta Vaz & Anr. v. Jacinta Pereira & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2025]