JUDGMENT R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Wagle, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Aguiar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7-6-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda, in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2013/A whereby the suit filed by the appellants to partition the property came to be dismissed. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appeared in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 and the defendant No. 1 are the children of late Vidhyadhar Madhav Upadhye and the plaintiff No. 8 is the widow of the said late Vidhyadhar Madhav Upadhye. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 4, 7 and the defendant No. 2 are the respective spouses of the said plaintiffs and the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that there exists a property known as 'Ghor Bhat' admeasuring an area of 1,24,800 square metres situated at Village Queula of Ponda Taluka surveyed under No. 57/1 of Village Queula belonging to the said Vidhyadhar Madhav Upadhye who expired on 8-12-2004. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that by deed of succession dated 4-4-2013 drawn before the Notary Ex-Officio at Ponda, the parties to the suit were declared to be the legal heirs/successors of the said late Vidhyadhar Madhav Upadhye, plaintiff No. 8 being moiety holder and half sharer to the estate of the said deceased. It is further their case that pursuant to the said deed of succession, the names of the parties were mutated in the survey records. It is also claimed by the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of the said Vidhyadhar Madhav Upadhye all the parties were allotted different portions of the suit property and they were enjoying separate portions as per the wishes of the said deceased. It is further their case that some portion was also kept for the widow i.e. Plaintiff No. 8 and a certain portion was kept for common enjoyment. It is further their case that some portion was also kept for the widow i.e. Plaintiff No. 8 and a certain portion was kept for common enjoyment. Accordingly, it was the contention of the plaintiffs that they decided to partition the suit property by executing a deed of partition before the Sub Registrar of Ponda and accordingly the plan was drawn by the Civil Engineer. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that from the total area of the suit property is admeasuring 1,24,800 square meters, an area of 11,500 square meters was decided to be kept as common land and the remaining area of 1,13,000 square meters was to be partitioned amongst six persons in their respective shares namely 50% to the plaintiff No. 8 being the mother, admeasuring an area of 56,650 square meters, an area of 3530 square meters to the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4; and an area of 13,280 square meters each to the plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 5, plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7 and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. These areas were shown and identified in the plan attached to the plaint. It is further their case that after the plan was drawn in accordance with the respective wishes of the parties and when the plaintiff No. 6 approached the defendant No. 1 for contribution towards the stamp duty for executing the deed of partition, the said defendant refused to contribute and was unwilling to partition the property. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit to partition the suit property as per the plan annexed to the plaint and for other reliefs. The defendants were served with the summons but failed to remain present. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 6 has examined himself as PW 1 and produced the relevant documents. The engineer was also examined as PW 2. 5. The learned Judge dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment on the ground that no suit for partition would lie unless shares were determined in the inventory proceedings by relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in, 1991 (2) GLT 42 in the case of Shri Cruz Fernandes and another vs. Smt. Gregorina Estefania Sofia and others. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs have filed the above appeal. 6. Mr. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs have filed the above appeal. 6. Mr. P. Wagle, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Cruz Fernandes (supra) which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel further pointed out that in a subsequent judgment, another learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000 (2) GLT 539 in the case of Marcus Nunes vs. Mrs. Filomena Sebastiana de Piedade Fernandes, has held that when the shares of the parties are determined and admitted, there is no bar to file a suit for partition. The learned counsel further points out that in the present case, admittedly, there are no dispositions made by the estate leaver and as such the question of there being any impediment in filing a suit for partition does not arise. The learned counsel further pointed out that as the parties have agreed to partition the property, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned judgment and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel as such points out that the learned Judge ought to have passed a preliminary decree and directed the property to be partitioned by metes and bounds in terms of the plan produced by PW 2. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. M. Aguiar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the defendants have no objection in case the suit property is partitioned by metes and bounds as the defendants are agreeable to get the property partitioned in accordance with the plan prepared by PW 2. 8. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the learned Judge was justified to hold that the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable? 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Judge has dismissed the suit essentially on the ground that the suit for partition would not lie unless the shares of the parties were determined in a competent inventory proceedings. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Judge has dismissed the suit essentially on the ground that the suit for partition would not lie unless the shares of the parties were determined in a competent inventory proceedings. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Cruz Fernandes (supra) is on the premise that there was a Will of the disposal quota executed in favour of the heirs. The disposable quota would have to be determined in the inventory proceedings and thereafter the shares of the parties would have to be finalized. But however, in the present case, it is not in dispute that there are no dispositions by the estate leaver in the form of Will or Gift etc., whereby the shares of the parties would have to be determined. In the present case, the plaintiff No. 8/widow of the estate leaver is entitled to half share of the properties of the couple and the remaining half share would devolve upon all the legal successors of the deceased equally. In such circumstances, as the shares of the parties are determinable and the parties have agreed to partition the property by metes and bounds, there is no reason to refuse a relief to partition the property on the ground that a suit for partition would not lie unless the shares are determined in the inventory proceedings. It is emphasised that such exercise is permissible when all the parties agree to partition the property by metes and bounds on the basis of determinable shares of the co-heirs in such properties. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment in the case of Marcus Nunes (supra) has in fact taken a view that when the shares of the parties are determinable and admitted, there is no bar for filing the suit for partition. 10. Article 2013 of the Portuguese Civil Code reads thus: "Where all the heirs are major and none amongst them is absentee or under interdiction, they may agree in any manner they wish as to the partition, provided that it is done by a public deed or public act." 11. 10. Article 2013 of the Portuguese Civil Code reads thus: "Where all the heirs are major and none amongst them is absentee or under interdiction, they may agree in any manner they wish as to the partition, provided that it is done by a public deed or public act." 11. The said provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code clearly provides that it is permissible for the parties to agree in any manner they wish to partition the property of the estate leaver provided it is done by a public deed or public act. In such circumstances, when the law itself recognizes an agreement between the parties to partition the property by a public act there is no reason to refuse a relief to partition the property of the estate leaver in a suit for partition wherein the parties have agreed to get the property partitioned in terms of the shares agreed by the parties. It is also to be noted that such agreement would establish that the parties have given up their rights to claim licitation of the properties of the estate leaver. 12. It would also be relevant to note that in terms of the provisions of Article 1391 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, which governs the procedure in the inventory proceedings, once the parties are intimated of the list of assets in the manner as provided by Article 1379 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, if interested parties do not apply for licitation within 48 hours, such right gets waived and there can be no licitation. In such a case, the property enlisted in such proceedings would be allotted to the interested parties in accordance with their respective shares. On reading the said provisions, in case the parties to the suit agree to partition the properties of the estate leaver as per the agreed shares, it would mean that the parties have given up their rights to the licitation. As such, there is no reason to refuse a relief of partition when the shares of the parties are determinable and the parties to the suit agreed to get the properties divided by metes and bounds. Only in cases in which there are dispositions such as Will, Gift, etc., the suit for partition without getting the shares determined or agreed upon by all the parties in terms of law, would not be maintainable. 13. Only in cases in which there are dispositions such as Will, Gift, etc., the suit for partition without getting the shares determined or agreed upon by all the parties in terms of law, would not be maintainable. 13. The learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment has failed to consider that in the present case, there were no dispositions which would require that the shares of the parties are to be determined in inventory proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has admitted the shares of the defendant in the property of the estate leaver and also agreed that such property be partitioned by metes and bounds. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was not justified to rely upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Cruz Fernandes (supra) which was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-6-2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Judge would have to proceed with the suit and partition the property as per the shares agreed upon by the parties in accordance with law. The learned Judge would also take into consideration while effecting such partition the agreement between the parties to partition the property in terms of the plan produced by PW 2 and essentially allot the portions to the parties as reflected in such plan. The point for determination is answered accordingly. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned judgment and decree dated 7-6-2014 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Special Civil Suit No. 14/2013/A is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda. (iii) The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the suit after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge on 28th January, 2015 at 10.00 a.m. (v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.