Prakash Vasanta Sinai Quercar v. Tejashvini Prakash Sinai Quercer @ Tejasvini Vassanta Pai Lotlikar Querker

Vinita

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.8 OF 2022.

PRAKASH VASANTA SINAI QUERCAR .

Versus

TEJASHVINI PRAKASH SINAI QUERCER @ TEJASVINI VASSANTA PAI LOTLIKAR QUERKER ... Appellant.

...Respondent.

Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. P. Naik, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. N. Gawde, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM:

B. P. COLABAWALLA, J DATED:

2nd MARCH 2023 P.C.

1.

The above Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 15.2.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Inventory Proceedings No.123/2018/A/B in Matrimonial Petition No. 75/1999/B. The other consequential prayer sought is that the Inventory Proceedings may remanded to the Trial Court as per law. The impugned order was passed by the Inventory Court in Inventory Proceeding No.123/2018/B in MatrimonialPetition No.75/1999/B. This Inventory Proceedings were held to be barred by the law of limitation on the ground that the divorce that was granted under consent terms dated 3.10.2006, contemplated that the parties agree to execute the necessary Public Deed/or initiate Inventory Proceedings to formalise the separation of the property as required

by law within two months. These consent terms were filed in this Court in First Appeal No.201/2002 2.

I heard the parties at some length.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/ wife on taking instructions of the son of the Respondent who is present in Court and whom I am informed has authority to make a statement on behalf of the Respondent/wife, has stated that dehors the issue of limitation, the Inventory Proceedings are wholly unnecessary because the properties forming part of the consent terms dated 3.10.2006 are already partitioned by virtue of the said consent terms. She has stated that the Respondent stands by these consent terms.

4.

In my opinion, once the Respondent accepts that the consent terms itself partitioned the properties between the Petitioner and the Respondent, she is correct in her submission that Inventory Proceedings are rendered wholly unnecessary.

5.

In these circumstances, it is ordered that consent terms dated 3.10.2006 itself shall be treated as a Deed of Partition of the assets between the Petitioner and the Respondent as more particularly set out in the said consent terms.

6.

Appeal from Order is accordingly disposed of. 7.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

Date: 2023.03.03 12:32:18 +05'30'

VINITA VIKAS NAIK