KAKADE P.V., J.: - Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2.This is an appeal aimed against the judgment and order passed by the Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem at Margao rejecting the application of third party to intervene in the Inventory Proceedings. 3.The applicant submitted before the lower Court that the said inventory Proceedings were initiated by the Inveterate Smt. Clarina Miranda Dias and the Court had appointed the said person as Cabeca de Casal. The applicant sought to make out the case that he was married to Sushil L. Dias, daughter of the Estate leaver on 14/9/1986 and the marriage subsisted till 7/2/1991, when the applicant got a decree of divorce against the said Sushila Dias under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce. Therefore, he prayed that he be added as interested party to the Inventory Proceedings. 4. The factual matrix was that the marriage between Sushila L. Dias and Avert no Fernandez was solemnized in Bombay and was not registered in Goa. Hence, the custom of communion of assets would not apply to the marriage celebrated under the Special Marriage Act in Bombay. This being so, the application was opposed submitting that the said applicant, Avert no Fernandez could not claim any right in that estate of the deceased and, therefore, the application was sought to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Comarca Judge came to the conclusion that privilege to avail the right under communion of assets offered under Portuguese Law was not availed by the parties. This privilege can be taken by parties who register their marriage in Goa. The divorce obtained in Goa only proves the dissolution of marriage and does not cover the privilege of communion of assets, which option is given to parties who celebrate and register the marriage before Sub-Registrar as per Cod go Civil de Casements and as such, the application came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 6. In the course of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant sought to rely upon several provisions of the Portuguese Law, which according to him were argued before the lower Court, but the lower Court did not take those provisions into account and proceeded to dismissed the application. The application for review was also, according to him, was preferred, but was also rejected giving no detailed reason. The application for review was also, according to him, was preferred, but was also rejected giving no detailed reason. In view of this position and under the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter is fit to be remanded to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao for fresh appraisal or the basis of submissions advanced on be half of the present applicant. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower Court with direction that the parties should be heard on the application dated 30/3/1999 (Exhibit 6) and the application should be disposed of within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the writ of this, Court. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No. 201 of 2001 also stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.