“Under the provisions 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.” The Supreme Court has observed that a married daughter would have a right of succession in the “lease premises”, as per the provisions of Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah was considering an appeal against the Bombay High Court (at Goa) order that had confirmed an order passed by the Inventory Court holding that a married daughter has no right in the “lease premises” and therefore the same cannot be subjected to the inventory proceedings. In this appeal (Uma Mahesh Bandekar vs. Vivek Sadanand Marathe), the court essentially considered the issue whether the married daughter would have a right of succession in the “lease premises” or not?
Referring to the provisions of the Act, the bench observed that in Section 5 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, 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, the bench said.
The court also added that the legal position under Portuguese Civil Code 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.
The bench observed: “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 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 19 provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code and as per the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 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”.”
The court further held that both the High court and inventory court erred in taking into account the Rent Act. The court said that the only question 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.
The bench said: “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 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 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 provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.”