JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---Inventory proceedings were initiated on the death of Edward Lourenco, Maria Pia Lourenco and Agapito Lourenco and in the said Inventory proceedings Fr. Rosario was appointed as 'Cabeca de Casal', being the eldest male member of the family. Applicant Joseph, who is brother of Fr. Rosario, filed objection to the appointment of Fr. Rosario and claimed that he should have been appointed as 'Cabeca de Casal'. An application to that effect was filed by the applicant Joseph. Applicant Joseph produced three documents, namely, a copy of declaration of Electoral Roll dated 12-5-1983, three medical certificates of Doctors relating to the said three deceased and a certificate from the Chief Officer. In addition the applicant relied upon an affidavit of Robert D'Souza. 2.After hearing the parties, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, dismissed the application filed by the said applicant Joseph and it is this order which is challenged in this Revision. 3.Counsel the parties were heard. Senior Advocate, Shri Coelho Pereira urged before me that it was incumbent upon the Lower Court to have conducted an inquiry into the matter as contemplated by law and the Lower Court could not decide the issue merely on the basis of affidavits. It was next contended by him that it is now well settled that provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to Inventory proceedings and in this connection reliance has been placed on the decision in Zacarias Durate Domingos Pereira v. Camilo Inacio Evaristo Pereira A.I.R. 1984 Bom. 295. Shri Coelho Pereira has placed reliance upon paras 25 and 27 of the said Judgment. He, therefore, contends that no proper inquiry was conducted by the Lower Court. Alternatively he also contends that the Lower Court erred in rejecting the documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and upon placing reliance on a certificate of the Parish priest which had been filed by the respondents. 4.Senior Advocate Shri Usgaoncar, submitted before me that no substantive rights of the parties are affected on account of appointment of 'Cabeca de Casal' since appointment is made as an interim measure for the purpose of administration of the estate. He next urged that the burden of proof of establishing the fact that the deceased were permanently living in the company of the applicant Joseph, was on the Applicant Joseph and he failed to discharge the said burden. He next urged that the burden of proof of establishing the fact that the deceased were permanently living in the company of the applicant Joseph, was on the Applicant Joseph and he failed to discharge the said burden. Lastly, it is submitted that the scope of inquiry has to be dealt with reference to Article 1374 of Portuguese Civil Procedure Code and that it is not necessary to make any elaborate inquiry. On merits, Shri Usgaoncar contends that the Lower Court has rightly rejected the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners. 5.I have considered the rival contentions placed before me by the Advocates for the parties. Article 2068 of the Portuguese Civil Code deals with the appointment of 'Cabeca de Casal'. The case in question is governed by Article 2068(2) of the Portuguese Civil Code and paragraphs 1(b) and 1(d) are to be considered for the purpose of decision in the matter. Amongst the sons, preference is to be given to legitimate sons vis-a-vis the illegitimate; the next in preference are the sons living with the deceased followed by preference of males over females and lastly there being more than one in the same circumstances, the elder shall have preference. 6.Article 1374 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code states that along with the application or reply raising objections, it will be stated what evidence will be led, and after necessary evidence is led, the question shall be decided immediately. In the application filed by Applicant Joseph objecting to the appointment of 'Cabeca de Casal' it was nowhere stated by him that he wanted to lead evidence. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the Applicant did not even ask for any inquiry for the purpose of leading evidence and had on the contrary filed an affidavit of Robert D'Souza in support of his contention. 7.In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was no need for making any elaborate inquiry by leading evidence as has been contended by Senior Advocate Shri Coelho Pereira. The Lower Court in its order has rightly pointed out that the onus of proving the fact that Joseph was living with the deceased was on Joseph himself. The Applicant Joseph had produced three documents in support of his contention and all the said three documents were rightly rejected by the Lower Court. The Lower Court in its order has rightly pointed out that the onus of proving the fact that Joseph was living with the deceased was on Joseph himself. The Applicant Joseph had produced three documents in support of his contention and all the said three documents were rightly rejected by the Lower Court. The declaration in the Electoral Roll was dated 12-5-1983; and the certificate of the Chief Officer had been merely issued on an application filed by the petitioner himself. It is not known whether any inquiry had been conducted by the Chief Officer for the purpose of issuing the said certificate and it is also not known on what basis these said certificate had been issued by the Chief Officer. The applicant having failed to prove the burden which was cast on him could not succeed in his application raising objections to the appointment of Fr. Rosario who admittedly was the eldest male member of the family. 8.For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this Revision and the Revision is hereby dismissed. 9.In the facts and circumstances I leave the parties to bear their costs. Revision dismissed.