UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR AND ANOTHERversusVIVEK SADANAND MARATHE AND OTHERS

                        [2019] 5 S.C.R. 357                             357


         UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR AND ANOTHER                                A
                                 v.
        VIVEK SADANAND MARATHE AND OTHERS                        .
                   (Civil Appeal No.2961 of 2019)
                         MARCH 13, 2019                                 B

      [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
      Goa Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1968 – ss.2(o), 59 – Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 –
Decree No.43525 – Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory            C
Proceeding Act, 2012 – ss.3, 5, 9, 6, 8 and 399 – After death of
parents, respondent No.1-brother of appellant no.1 initiated/filed
the inventory proceedings before the Inventory Court with the list
of assets which did not include the ‘lease premises’ – Appellants
objected the non-inclusion of ‘lease premises’ in the inventory
proceedings/list of assets – Inventory Court dismissed the objections   D
of the appellants – High Court confirmed the dismissal by the
Inventory Court and held that considering s.2(o) of the Goa Rent
Act, appellant no.1-a married daughter has no right in the ‘lease
premises’ and a married daughter cannot be said to be a tenant of
the ‘lease premises’ in view of s.2(o) of the Goa Rent Act – On         E
appeal, held: The dispute was neither under the provisions of the
Goa Rent Act nor between the landlord and the tenant and therefore,
both the inventory Court as well as the High Court had erred in
considering the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, particularly s.2(o)
of the Goa Rent Act – Under the provisions of the erstwhile
Portuguese Civil Code and/or under the provisions of the Inventory      F
Proceeding Act, 2012, there is no further classification between a
daughter married or unmarried and son – Therefore, considering
the scheme and the provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil
Code and as per the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act,
2012, even the married daughter would have a right of succession        G
in the ‘lease premises’ – In the instant case, appellant no.1 being
married daughter shall have a right of succession in the ‘lease
premises’ and the same ought to have been included in the list of
assets in inventory proceedings – Thus, impugned orders passed by
the inventory court and the High Court quashed and set aside.
                                                                        H
                                357
358           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.The short question which is posed for
      consideration before this Court is, right of a married daughter by
      way of succession in the “lease premises” and whether with
      respect to “lease premises”, a married daughter shall have a
B     right of succession, vis a vis, Succession, Special Notaries and
      Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 or not? [Para 6.1] [366-E-F]
            2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
      proceedings before the inventory court as well as the High Court
      were under the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012/
C     Portuguese Civil Code, which shall be continued on enactment
      of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, as if those proceedings
      were/are initiated under the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (in
      view of Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012). It is
      required to be noted that the proceedings before the inventory
      court and the High Court were not at all with respect to Goa
D     Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
      1968. The proceedings were not between the landlord and the
      tenant. The provisions of Goa Rent Act shall be applicable with
      respect to dispute between the landlord and the tenant. As per
      the preamble of the Goa Rent Act, it has been enacted for control
E     of rents and evictions. At the cost of repetition, it is observed
      that the dispute was neither under the provisions of the Goa Rent
      Act nor between the landlord and the tenant and therefore both,
      the inventory court as well as the High Court have erred in
      considering the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, more particularly
      Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act. The only question which was
F     before the inventory court and the High Court was in respect of
      the rights of succession of a married daughter in the “lease
      premises” under the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code
      and subsequently under the provisions of the Inventory
      Proceeding Act, 2012. Therefore, what is required to be
G     considered is whether under the provisions of the Portuguese
      Civil Code and on enactment of Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012,
      whether the married daughter would have a right of succession
      in the “lease premises” or not? [Para 9] [368-H; 369-A-E]
           3. Considering the relevant provisions of the Inventory
H     Proceeding Act, 2012, first of all, it is required to be noted that
      UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                             359
                    MARATHE             .

so far as rights of successor, i.e., heirs and legatees, as provided    A
under Section 5 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, as such,
there is no classification between the daughter married or
unmarried and son. It cannot be disputed that a daughter, may
be a daughter married or unmarried, would have a right of
succession in the properties of the parents including the lease.
                                                                        B
Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides for
list of assets which can be thrown to succession and it includes
movable and immovable assets including mortgages, easements,
leases and other encumbrances. Even, as admitted by the
advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, so stated in
the additional written submissions, it is not disputed to the           C
proposition, whether Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 makes no
distinction as to the gender of the child or as to the order of birth
or as to the status of being single or married to discriminate in
matters relating to succession. It is also admitted that this legal
position has not been changed pursuant to the enactment and
                                                                        D
enforcement of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, brought into
force with effect from 19.09.2016. Even otherwise, as per Section
68 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, all the children and
their descendants succeed to their respective parents and other
ascendants, without distinction of sex or age. Thus, under the
provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 and/or          E
under the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, there
is no further classification between a daughter married or
unmarried and son. Therefore, considering the scheme and the
provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code and as per the
provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, which has come
                                                                        F
into effect with effect from 19.09.2016, even the married daughter
would have a right of succession in the “lease premises”. As
observed hereinabove, Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding
Act, 2012 provides for list of assets which includes movables
and immovables assets including mortgages, easements, leases
and other encumbrances. [Para 10] [369-E-H; 370-A-D]                    G
       4. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the respondents
that in view of the subsequent development of the inventory court
pronouncing the final order and has drawn the final chart of
partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C, which
                                                                        H
360            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     does not include the “lease premises” and the appellants having
      signed and accepted the same, the present proceedings have
      become infructuous is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance
      and the same is required to be rejected outright. It is required
      to be noted that the final order has been pronounced by the
      inventory court during the pendency of the present proceedings,
B
      excluding the “lease premises” in the list of assets in the
      inventory proceedings which are under challenge. As the lease
      premises was not included in the list of assets in the inventory
      proceedings, naturally, the same would not be in the final chart of
      partition, and therefore, whatever order is passed by the inventory
C     court, the appellants would have to sign and accept the same.
      However, as the present proceedings were pending and during
      the pendency of the present proceedings, the inventory court
      has pronounced the final order and has drawn the final chart of
      partition, it cannot be said that the challenge to the exclusion of
      the “lease premises” from the list of assets in the inventory
D
      proceedings has become infructuous. As the present proceedings
      were pending, the right of the appellants to challenge the exclusion
      of the “lease premises” from the list of assets in the inventory
      proceedings would continue and once it is held that appellant
      no.1 being a married daughter would have a right of succession
E     in the “lease premises”, and the same was wrongly excluded
      from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings, despite the
      final order being passed in the inventory proceedings and the
      final chart being drawn, the same can be amended with the aid of
      Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. [Para 12]
      [370-F-H; 371-A-D]
F
            Mohammad Laiquiddin v. Kamala Devi Misra (Dead)
            by LRs. (2010) 2 SCC 407 : [2010] 1 SCR 873
            – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
G           [2010] 1 SCR 873           referred to          Para 5.3
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2961
      of 2019.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2016 of the High Court
      of Bombay at Goa in Appeal From Order No. 39 of 2015.
H
       UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                   361
                     MARATHE             .

      Ms. Binu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, Advs. for the Appellants.                   A
      Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment        B
and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Goa in Appeal from Order No. 39/2015, by which the
High Court has dismissed the said Appeal from Order and has confirmed
the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Adhoc
Senior Civil Judge, Margao in the Inventory Proceedings by the original        C
Inventariante and other parties, the original appellants before the High
Court have preferred the present appeal.
      3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
       At the outset it is required to be noted that the ‘lease premises’
was of a partnership firm in the name and style “Ramnath Anant                 D
Kesarkar” at Margao. That appellant no.1 and respondent nos. 1 & 3
herein are the sisters and brother. The parents of the parties (appellant
no.1 and respondent nos. 1 & 3 herein), namely, Late Sadanand V.
Marathe and his wife Late Nirmalabai S. Marathe succeeded to the
lease premises in terms of Deed of Partition dated 29.03.1976, registered
                                                                               E
in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Salcete at Margao, Goa. The said
premises was of a partnership firm in the name and style “Ramnath
Anant Kesarkar” having business carried out in the tenanted premises
belonging to one Jairam Vasant Katkar at Margao. That the father
Sadanand V. Marathe died on 12.05.1985. That the mother Niarmalabai
S. Marathe died on 05.05.1998. Thus, the parents of the parties i.e.,          F
Late Sadanand V. Marathe and his wife Late Niarmalabai S. Marathe
since deceased passed away on 12.05.1985 and 05.05.1998 respectively.
That after the demise of the parents, respondent no.1 – brother of appellant
no.1 and son of Late Sadanand V.Marathe and Late Nirmalabai S.
Marathe filed Regular Inventory Proceedings No.11/2013/C dated
                                                                               G
08.11.2013. That the Court appointed respondent no.1 as the head of
the family/Cabeca de Casal to administer the estate left by the deceased,
during the pendency of the said proceedings and also appointed a court
valuer for valuing and determining the extent of properties stated in the
inventory proceedings. The valuer appointed by the court submitted its
                                                                               H
362             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     report to the court on 30.04.2014. The appellants herein filed objections
      to the valuation report, inter alia, pointing out that there are certain
      infirmities regarding the enlisted plots, survey nos. and also ambiguous
      narration of the area and the amended list of assets. As a result of the
      said objections, respondent no.1 filed a revised list of assets in the inventory
      proceedings on 16.10.2014. The appellants herein filed their objections/
B
      reply to the revised list of assets. The main objection on behalf of the
      appellants was non-inclusion of the ‘lease premises’ in the inventory
      proceedings/list of assets. Respondent no.1 filed reply to the objections
      of the appellants. It was submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that the
      partnership firm does not form part of the estate of the deceased as
C     married daughters are not entitled to the tenanted premises.
            3.1 That by order dated 02.06.2015, the learned Civil Judge at
      Margao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Inventory Court’) dismissed the
      objections of the appellants for correcting the area of the said property
      and also denied enlisting of the said tenanted premises to the estate of
D     the deceased.
            3.2 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Inventory
      Court dated 02.06.2015, the appellants filed an appeal before the High
      Court being Appeal from Order No. 39/2015. That by the impugned
      judgment and order, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed the
E     appeal preferred by the appellants. From the impugned judgment and
      order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has
      mainly relied upon Section 2(o) of the Goa Daman & Diu Buildings
      (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as
      the ‘Goa Rent Act’), and relying upon the aforesaid provision of the Goa
      Rent Act, the High Court has held that the married daughter would not
F     qualify as a tenant in terms of the Goa Rent Act. The High Court also
      examined and considered Decree No. 43525 of the Portuguese Civil
      Code and observed and held that in view of Section 59 of the Goa Rent
      Act and the repeal provision, Decree No. 43525 of Portuguese Civil
      Code shall stand repealed and the parties shall be governed by the
G     provisions of the Goa Rent Act only.
            3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court and dismissing the Appeal from
      Order and confirming the order passed by the learned Inventory Court
      holding that being a married daughter, appellant no.1 has no right in the
H     “lease premises” and therefore the same cannot be subjected to the
       UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                 363
               MARATHE [M.R. SHAH, J.]     .

inventory proceedings, the appellants -original petitioners – objectors      A
have preferred the present appeal.
       3.4 This Court issued notice in the special leave petition vide
order dated 08.07.2016. That during the pendency of the present appeal,
the Inventory Court has pronounced the final order and has drawn the
final chart of partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No.11/2013/C        B
vide final order dated 31.07.2017, excluding the “lease premises” which
is the subject matter of present appeal.
      4. Ms. Binu Tamta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of
the appellants and Ms. A. Subhashini, learned advocate has appeared
on behalf of the respondents.                                                C
       4.1 Ms. Binu Tamta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants has vehemently submitted that both, the learned Inventory
Court as well as the High Court have materially erred in not considering
the right of a married daughter, vis a vis, the Goa Succession, Special
Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to         D
as the ‘Inventory Proceeding Act 2012’).
       4.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants that both, the learned Inventory Court as well
as the High Court have materially erred in considering the provisions of
the Goa Rent Act and not at all considering the right of succession of the   E
married daughters as per the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.
      4.3 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants that so far as the succession in the inventory
proceedings is concerned, the parties are governed by the Inventory
Proceeding Act, 2012.                                                        F
       4.4 Ms. Binu Tamta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants has taken us to the relevant provisions of the Inventory
Proceeding Act, 2012 and relying upon the relevant provisions of the
Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, more particularly Sections 3, 5, 9, 68 of
the said Act, has submitted that under the provisions of the Inventory
                                                                             G
Proceeding Act, 2012, there is no distinction/classification between
daughter married or unmarried & son. It is submitted by Ms. Binu
Tamta, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that Section 399
provides for list of assets, movable & immovable assets including
mortgages, easements, lease and others encumbrances.
                                                                             H
364            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A            4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellants that definition of ‘tenant’ under the Goa Rent
      Act shall not be applicable in the case of Law of Succession. It is
      submitted that in the present case the proceedings were not initiated
      under the Goa Rent Act and the dispute was not between the landlord
      and the tenant, and therefore, the provisions of the Goa Rent Act shall
B
      not be applicable at all. It is submitted that therefore both the courts
      below have materially erred in non-suiting the appellants relying upon
      and/or considering the provisions of Goa Rent Act. It is submitted that
      both the courts below have not properly appreciated the fact that the
      proceedings were/are inventory proceedings for the purpose of
C     inheritance of the estate of the deceased and therefore the provisions of
      the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 only shall be applicable and are
      required to be considered.
            4.6 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
      on behalf of the appellants that if the rights of appellant no.1 being a
D     married daughter are considered vis a vis/considering the Inventory
      Proceeding Act, 2012, in that case, appellant no.1 being a married daughter
      shall have a right of succession with respect to “lease premises”,
      considering Sections 3,5,9,68 and 399 of the Inventory Proceeding Act,
      2012.
E            4.7 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted by
      the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that both the
      courts below have materially erred in excluding the “lease premises”
      from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings and have materially
      erred in observing and holding that appellant no.1 being a married daughter
      has no right of succession in the “lease premises”. Making the above
F     submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
           5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. A.
      Subhashini, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
             5.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
G     on behalf of the respondents that in view of the subsequent development
      and passing the final order by the Inventory Court and drawing the final
      chart of partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C, which
      has been signed and accepted even by the appellants, the present appeal
      has become infructuous. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel

H
       UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                   365
               MARATHE [M.R. SHAH, J.]     .

appearing on behalf of the respondents that in the final order and/or the      A
final chart of partition in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C,
the “lease premises” has not been included and the said order has been
accepted by the appellants, the present appeal has become infructuous.
      5.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents that even on merits also, both the courts         B
below have rightly held that appellant no.1 being a married daughter has
no right of succession in the “lease premises” in view of Section 2(o) of
the Goa Rent Act. It is submitted that considering the provisions of
Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act, a married daughter has no right in the
tenanted/lease premises.
                                                                               C
       5.3 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents that right of a married daughter in the
“lease premises” has been considered by this Court in the case of
Mohammad Laiquiddin vs. Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) by Lrs.,
(2010) 2 SCC 407. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case, this Court
has also considered Decree No. 43525 under the Portuguese Civil Code           D
and also Section 59 of the Goa Rent Act, which relates to the repeal and
savings clause. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the aforesaid
decision as from the date on which the Goa Rent Act has brought into
force in any local area, the provisions of Decree No. 43525 dated 7th
March, 1961 and the Legislative Diploma No. 1409 dated 14.02.1952              E
and the corresponding provisions of any other law for the time being in
force shall stand repealed in that area. It is submitted that in the present
case, as such, the appellants heavily relied upon Decree No. 43525 dated
7.3.1961. It is submitted that however in view of Section 59 of the Goa
Rent Act, the provisions of Decree No. 43525 dated 7.3.1961 stand
repealed, the appellants cannot claim any right on the basis of the            F
provisions of Decree No. 43525 dated 7.3.1961.
      5.4 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents that as per Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent
Act, a married daughter would not qualify as a tenant and therefore
being a married daughter appellant no.1 cannot claim any right in the          G
tenanted/lease premises. It is submitted that the special law override
the general law and the Goa Rent Act being a special law which makes
special provision for any inheritance upon the death of the tenant and
the tenancy created by the Special Statute would be construed as a
                                                                               H
366             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     statutory tenant, the statutory tenancy making no provision for inheritance,
      confers no right on any legal heir. It is further submitted that consequent
      upon the enforcement of the Goa Rent Act, not only Decree No. 43525
      dated 7.3.1961 came to be repealed (in view of Section 59 of the Goa
      Rent Act), but also “the corresponding provision of any other law for the
      time being in force”, which would mean that the general law of succession
B
      contained in the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, would automatically stand
      repealed upon the enforcement of the Goa Rent Act insofar as building
      tenancies are concerned. It is submitted that therefore reliance placed
      upon Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 is misplaced. It
      is submitted that even Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding Act,
C     2012 has no application in the present case.
             5.5 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted by
      the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that the
      Inventory Court as well as the High Court have rightly held that appellant
      no.1 being a married daughter has no right in the “lease premises”, and
D     therefore, the same is rightly excluded from the list of assets in the
      inventory proceedings.
            5.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
      present appeal.
             6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
E     length.
             6.1 The short question which is posed for consideration before
      this Court is, right of a married daughter by way of succession in the
      “lease premises” and whether with respect to “lease premises”, a married
      daughter shall have a right of succession, vis a vis, Inventory Proceeding
F     Act, 2012 or not?
             6.2 While considering the aforesaid question/issue, the relevant
      provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 are required to be
      referred to and considered.
             6.3 The Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory
G
      Proceeding Act, 2012 has been enacted to consolidate and amend the
      law of intestate and testamentary succession, notarial law and the laws
      relating to partition of an inheritance and matters connected therewith.
      It has come into force with effect from 19.09.2016. Further, the
      Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 shall be applicable with respect to pending
H
        UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                     367
                MARATHE [M.R. SHAH, J.]     .

proceedings also, in view of Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding              A
Act, 2012. Section 3 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 defines
succession. As per Section 3 of the Act, succession is the transmission
of the estate of a deceased person in favour of his successors. It further
provides that a successor is the person who is called to succeed to the
juridical relations of the deceased person and upon whom the assets and
                                                                                  B
liabilities devolve. Section 5 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012
provides for the types of successors; heirs and legatees. As per the said
provision, heir is the person who inherits or succeeds to the totality of
the estate of the estate leaver or to an undefined share thereof without
specifying the assets constituting it, while a legatee is the one who
succeeds to specific and determined assets. As per Section 9 of the               C
Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, all persons, besides the State, who are
born or conceived at the time of the opening of the succession are
competent to succeed, unless the law provides otherwise. Section 10 of
the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides for incompetence to succeed
by reason of unworthiness to succeed. It provides for the persons who
                                                                                  D
shall be unworthy to succeed the estate leaver and are consequently
incompetent to be the successors (it does not include the married
daughter). Section 52 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides
for order of legal succession. It provides inter alia that the legal succession
shall devolve in the order as mention in Section 52 and it first devolve on
the descendants. Section 68 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012                 E
provides for succession of children and their descendants and it
specifically provides that the children and their descendants succeed to
their respective parents and other ascendants, without distinction of
sex or age. Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides
for initial list of assets and it includes movables and livestock, the
                                                                                  F
immovables including mortgages, easements, leases and other
encumbrances thereon and lastly depts due by the estate. Section 446
of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 permits amendment of partition.
It provides that the partition may be amended, even after it has become
final and no appeal has been preferred, in the very same inventory
proceedings by agreement of the parties or their representatives, where           G
there is a mistake of facts in the list of assets or in the classification of
the assets or any other error which vitiates the will of the parties. Section
460 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides that on and from
the date of coming into force the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, all
                                                                                  H
368            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     provisions of the laws in force at present corresponding to any of the
      provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 shall stand repealed.
      However, sub-section 3 of Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding Act,
      2012 provides that “all proceedings pending under the repealed laws
      before any court in the State or Goa, as on the date of the coming into
      force of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, shall be continued in terms
B
      of the procedure provided in the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. The
      Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 provides for the proceedings/inventory
      proceedings to partition the inheritance of a deceased person or to obtain
      a formal order of allotment of inheritance by the Court. A person who
      initiates the inventory proceedings has to submit the list of assets to be
C     partitioned.
              7. In the present case, respondent no.1 - brother of appellant no.1
      initiated/filed the inventory proceedings before the Inventory Court with
      the list of assets which did not include the “lease premises”. According
      to respondent no.1 the “lease premises” was not included in the list of
D     assets as the “lease premises” is not inheritable and that appellant no.1
      being a married daughter has no right of succession in the tenanted/
      lease premises. Appellant no.1 herein raised an objection against non-
      inclusion of the “lease premises” in the list of assets submitted in the
      inventory proceedings. The objection came to be overruled by the learned
      Inventory Court which has been confirmed by the High Court by the
E     impugned judgment and order on the ground that considering Section
      2(o) of the Goa Rent Act, a married daughter has no right in the “lease
      premises” and a married daughter cannot be said to be a tenant of the
      “lease premises” in view of Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act.
             8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
F     respective parties and considering the relevant provisions of the Inventory
      Proceeding Act, 2012 and the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, for the
      reasons hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that both, the learned
      Inventory Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error
      in relying upon the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, while considering the
G     right of succession of a married daughter in the “lease premises” vis a
      vis and/or under the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.
            9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the proceedings
      before the inventory court as well as the High Court were under the
      provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012/ Portuguese Civil Code,
H
       UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                   369
               MARATHE [M.R. SHAH, J.]     .

which shall be continued on enactment of the Inventory Proceeding Act,         A
2012, as if those proceedings were/are initiated under the Inventory
Proceeding Act, 2012 (in view of Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding
Act, 2012). It is required to be noted that the proceedings before the
inventory court and the High Court were not at all with respect to Goa
Rent Act. The proceedings were not between the landlord and the
                                                                               B
tenant. The provisions of Goa Rent Act shall be applicable with respect
to dispute between the landlord and the tenant. As per the preamble of
the Goa Rent Act, it has been enacted for control of rents and evictions.
At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the dispute was neither under
the provisions of the Goa Rent Act nor between the landlord and the
tenant and therefore both, the inventory court as well as the High Court       C
have erred in considering the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, more
particularly Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act. The only question which
was before the inventory court and the High Court was in respect of the
rights of succession of a married daughter in the “lease premises” under
the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and subsequently under the
                                                                               D
provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. Therefore, what is
required to be considered is whether under the provisions of the
Portuguese Civil Code and on enactment of Inventory Proceeding Act,
2012, whether the married daughter would have a right of succession in
the “lease premises” or not?
       10. Considering the relevant provisions of the Inventory Proceeding     E
Act, 2012, referred to hereinabove, first of all, it is required to be noted
that so far as rights of successor, i.e., heirs and legatees, as provided
under Section 5 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, as such, there is
no classification between the daughter married or unmarried and son. It
cannot be disputed that a daughter, may be a daughter married or               F
unmarried, would have a right of succession in the properties of the
parents including the lease. Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding
Act, 2012 provides for list of assets which can be thrown to succession
and it includes movable and immovable assets including mortgages,
easements, leases and other encumbrances. Even, as admitted by the
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, so stated in          G
the additional written submissions, it is not disputed to the proposition,
whether Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 makes no distinction as to the
gender of the child or as to the order of birth or as to the status of being
single or married to discriminate in matters relating to succession. It is
                                                                               H
370             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     also admitted that this legal position has not been changed pursuant to
      the enactment and enforcement of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012,
      brought into force with effect from 19.09.2016. Even otherwise, as per
      Section 68 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, all the children and
      their descendants succeed to their respective parents and other
      ascendants, without distinction of sex or age. Thus, under the provisions
B
      of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 and/or under the provisions
      of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, there is no further classification
      between a daughter married or unmarried and son. Therefore,
      considering the scheme and the provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese
      Civil Code and as per the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act,
C     2012, which has come into effect with effect from 19.09.2016, even the
      married daughter would have a right of succession in the “lease
      premises”. As observed hereinabove, Section 399 of the Inventory
      Proceeding Act, 2012 provides for list of assets which includes movables
      and immovables assets including mortgages, easements, leases and other
      encumbrances.
D
            11. From the impugned orders passed by the inventory court and
      the High Court, it is not in dispute that both the courts below have held
      against the appellants, more particularly appellant no.1 – married daughter,
      mainly relying upon and considering Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act,
      which, as observed hereinabove, ought not to have been considered and
E     has no relevance while considering the right of succession of a married
      daughter in the “lease premises” under the provisions of the erstwhile
      Portuguese Civil Code and subsequently on enactment of the Inventory
      Proceeding Act, 2012. The sum and substance of the above discussion
      would be that a married daughter would have a right of succession in the
F     “lease premises” also.
             12. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the respondents that in
      view of the subsequent development of the inventory court pronouncing
      the final order and has drawn the final chart of partition in Regular
      Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C, which does not include the “lease
G     premises” and the appellants having signed and accepted the same, the
      present proceedings have become infructuous is concerned, the aforesaid
      has no substance and the same is required to be rejected outright. It is
      required to be noted that the final order has been pronounced by the
      inventory court during the pendency of the present proceedings, excluding

H
       UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR v. VIVEK SADANAND                                     371
               MARATHE [M.R. SHAH, J.]     .

the “lease premises” in the list of assets in the inventory proceedings          A
which are under challenge. As the lease premises was not included in
the list of assets in the inventory proceedings, naturally, the same would
not be in the final chart of partition, and therefore, whatever order is
passed by the inventory court, the appellants would have to sign and
accept the same. However, as the present proceedings were pending
                                                                                 B
and during the pendency of the present proceedings, the inventory court
has pronounced the final order and has drawn the final chart of partition,
it cannot be said that the challenge to the exclusion of the “lease
premises” from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings has become
infructuous. As the present proceedings were pending, the right of the
appellants to challenge the exclusion of the “lease premises” from the           C
list of assets in the inventory proceedings would continue and once it is
held that appellant no.1 being a married daughter would have a right of
succession in the “lease premises”, and the same was wrongly excluded
from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings, despite the final
order being passed in the inventory proceedings and the final chart being
                                                                                 D
drawn, the same can be amended with the aid of Section 446 of the
Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.
        13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present
Appeal Succeeds. The impugned orders passed by the inventory court
and the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside, and it is held that
appellant no.1 being a married daughter shall have a right of succession         E
in the “lease premises” and the same ought to have been included in the
list of assets in the inventory proceedings. Consequently, the partition as
per the final order passed by the inventory court and consequent drawing
of the final chart of partition, pursuant to the final order dated 31.07.2017
in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C be amended accordingly             F
with the aid and/or considering Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding
Act, 2012.
      14. The instant APPEAL is ALLOWED accordingly, in terms of
the above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                 G
Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.




                                                                                 H