PANJIM: The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that inheritance rights vest in legal heirs immediately upon the death of an estate holder, irrespective of whether inventory proceedings have commenced.
While upholding the constitutional validity of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, the Court clarified that inventory proceedings are intended only to identify and demarcate the specific shares of heirs and are not a condition precedent for the transfer of ownership.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The ruling came in the context of challenges to the 2023 amendment, which retrospectively altered the order of succession by giving priority to a surviving spouse over ascendants and siblings. The Court held that although inheritance rights vest the moment succession opens upon death, such rights attain finality or “crystallisation” only after a final decree or registered partition. Therefore, the legislature was competent to apply the revised succession framework to pending proceedings where rights had vested but were yet to crystallise.
Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias and Shanataram Chanekar had filed two writ petitions, while Arjun Chandrakant Gaude and Bhuvaneshwar Faterpekar had filed separate miscellaneous civil applications.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S Chavan observed that under the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012, succession opens upon the death of the estate leaver and ownership and possession of the inheritance are immediately transmitted to the heirs. The Bench noted that where multiple heirs exist, their rights remain indefeasible in respect of ownership and possession until partition is effected.
The petitions before the Court challenged amendments to Sections 52, 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the 2012 Act introduced through the 2022 and 2023 Amendment Acts. The disputes arose in cases where individuals had died intestate before the amendments came into force. Under the original framework, siblings and parents enjoyed precedence or distinct positions in the order of succession. However, after the amendments, surviving spouses claimed exclusive entitlement to estates, resulting in the removal of original heirs from ongoing inventory proceedings.
The petitioners approached the High Court after lower courts dismissed inventory proceedings or struck off parties by retrospectively applying the 2023 amendment. They argued that the amendments unlawfully deprived them of vested rights accrued upon the death of the estate leaver. Rejecting the State’s contention that rights vest only after completion of inventory proceedings, the Court held that Section 13 of the Act clearly provides for immediate transmission of inheritance upon death.
The Bench further explained that inventory proceedings may be either mandatory or optional. Mandatory inventory proceedings arise when the estate includes a surviving spouse, a minor, an interdict, or an absent person of unknown whereabouts. In other situations, parties may opt for voluntary inventory proceedings. The Court clarified that such proceedings merely facilitate partition and do not determine the existence of inheritance rights themselves.
Addressing the retrospective operation of the 2023 amendment, the Court held that the legislature had consciously protected rights that had already crystallised through final decrees or registered partitions. However, rights that remained subject to adjudication in pending proceedings or appeals would continue to be governed by the amended order of succession. The Bench observed that although the amendment was deemed to have come into force retrospectively from December 21, 2016, the explanation appended to the provision ensured that only non-finalised rights would be affected.
The Court ultimately held that the legislature was competent to retrospectively alter vested statutory rights and found the prioritisation of the surviving spouse to be a reasonable legislative policy consistent with Goa’s communion of assets regime. Concluding that the amendments did not violate constitutional principles, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and confirmed that the amended succession rules would apply to all pending inventory proceedings and appeals, except in cases where rights had already crystallised through a final decree or registered deed before the 2023 amendment came into force.
Advocate Ashwin Ramani, Nigel Da Costa Frias and Shane Coutinho appeared for the petitioner. Advocate General Devidas Pangam, Adv Rohit Bras De Sa, Additional Government Advocates Somnath Karpe and N Vernekar, S Vaigankar, and Siddhi Parodkar appeared for the respondents.
