JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the appellants and respondent no. 1 are the only contesting parties and that the respondents no. 2 and 3 were absent before the lower Courts. They submitted that the matter be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 15/07/2013 passed by the District Judge–II, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27/2010. 4. Facts relevant for disposal of the petition are as under: Inventory proceedings No. 19036/78/II were instituted in order to partition the inheritance of Amancio Sebastiao Aleixo Roque de Pilar de Souza and his wife Maria Josefina Aquavia Martinha Faria. These proceedings were initiated on 27/01/1978. Their daughter Maria Lira de Souza was appointed as Cabeca de Casal. A list of assets was filed; auction was held; the map of partition was filed and on 07/03/1994 final order of allotment was passed. In the said list of assets, the item no. 39 was described as follows:- “7/8 of half of dwelling house with its courtyard and backyard, situated at Duncolim, bounded as a whole on the east by stone wall of courtyard and property gifted to Amancio, on the west by the said wall and the said gifted property, on the north by way of courtyard and on the south by the property gifted to Amancio, enrolled in the Land Revenue roll under no. 211, valued at Rs. 21,000/-.” 5. On 19/10/1996, the respondent no.1 filed an application before the learned Civil judge Senior Division (Trial Court) to hold additional inventory in respect of 1/8th of the property enlisted under item no. 39. It was alleged in this application that it was found that Amancio Pilar de Souza had got right to half of dwelling house with its courtyard and backyard in the inventario upon the death of his mother Emeliana de Souza, but the item no. 39 described only the 7/8 of half of the said property. It was therefore alleged that 1/8th of the said property still remains to be partitioned amongst the heirs. 6. The Cabeca de Casal filed reply dated 05/07/1997 denying the allegations made by the respondent no.1. 39 described only the 7/8 of half of the said property. It was therefore alleged that 1/8th of the said property still remains to be partitioned amongst the heirs. 6. The Cabeca de Casal filed reply dated 05/07/1997 denying the allegations made by the respondent no.1. The Cabeca de Casal submitted that all the assets are presently surveyed and therefore the respondent no.1 be directed to state as to what are the survey numbers to which he referred to as being 7/8th of 1/2 of the dwelling house auctioned by the Cabeca de Casal and what are the survey numbers of the said fraction which he claims to be 1/8th remaining to be partitioned. 7. By order dated 24/11/1997, the Trial Court dismissed the said application dated 19/10/1996. The Trial Court held that nothing was brought before the Court to identify the existence of 1/8th of the property and therefore there were no grounds to direct the head of the family to furnish the additional assets in respect of the said 1/8th of the property. 8. The respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal before this Court being Appeal from Order No. 24/1998. By oral judgment dated 12/04/1999, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 24/11/1997 passed by the Trial Court. In the said Appeal from Order, for the first time, the Cabeca de Casal contended that originally 7/8th share of the entire property was the subject matter of the inventory proceedings and not 7/8th share of half of the property in question. Since, the said contention was disputed by the present respondent no. 1, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed that an inquiry should be held by the Court below as to whether the subject matter of the inventory proceedings was 7/8th of half of the property with the description given at item no. 39 in the inventory proceedings and thereafter to take appropriate decision as regards the allotment. The matter was thus remanded back to the Trial Court for conducting the necessary inquiry. 9. Upon remand, on 15/10/1999, the Trial Court formulated the following issues : (i) Does the party Alvaro De Souza Faria proves that it is the 7/8th of half of the property with the description given at Item no.39 in the Inventory Proceedings? The matter was thus remanded back to the Trial Court for conducting the necessary inquiry. 9. Upon remand, on 15/10/1999, the Trial Court formulated the following issues : (i) Does the party Alvaro De Souza Faria proves that it is the 7/8th of half of the property with the description given at Item no.39 in the Inventory Proceedings? (ii) Does the Cabeca de Casal proves that the subject matter of the Inventory Proceedings was 7/8th share of the entire property? 10. The learned Trial Court took up the application dated 19/10/1996, filed by the respondent no. 1 and the issues as above framed in terms of the High court order, together, for disposal. The Trial Court conducted an inquiry with regard to the directions issued by this Court. The respondent no.1 did not wish to lead any oral evidence so also the Cabeca de Casal. By Order dated 19/10/2000, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application dated 19/10/1996 and held that the word 'half ' mentioned under item no. 39 stands deleted. The Trial Court observed that at the stage of arguments, the Cabeca de Casal produced three documents namely Sale Deed dated 30/04/1953, Land Registration Certificate and a Partition Deed dated 01/04/1931. The Trial Court held that the Sale Deed shows that said Amancio Pilar de Souza and his wife Maria Josefina A. M. Faria, alongwith others sold 1/8th of the residential house with the pateo and compound situated at Duncolim, to Maria Lira Ida de Souza and thus this document is sufficient to answer the query of the respondent no. 1 to the extent that the Cabeca de Casal had not disclosed about the remaining 1/8th share of the said property to be partitioned amongst the heirs because during the life time the said Amancio Pilar de Souza and his wife along with others had sold 1/8th portion of the said house to Maria Lira Ida de Souza. The Trial Court further observed that on account of above, it may be that the respondent no. 1 also did not raise objection when the list of assets was filed by head of the family since he was aware about the sale of 1/8th share to Maria Lira de Souza. The Trial Court further observed that on account of above, it may be that the respondent no. 1 also did not raise objection when the list of assets was filed by head of the family since he was aware about the sale of 1/8th share to Maria Lira de Souza. The Trial Court further observed that it could not arrive at any decision on the basis of the Land Registration Certificate and Partition Deed dated 01/04/1931 since the said documents were in Portuguese language and head of the family had not furnished English translation of both documents due to which it was not possible for the Court to examine those documents. The Trial Court further found that in the written submissions, the respondent no. 1 stated that the Partition Deed dated 01/04/1931 would show that Constancio Piedade inherited 1/8th share of the said property from his deceased daughter Maria Aurora and that whatever belonged to said Constancio was allotted to Amancio Pilar de Souza. The head of the family had produced before the Trial Court some chart showing as to how 1/8th of item no. 25 belonging to Constancio had devolved upon the legal heirs. The Trial Court found that as per the said chart, Maria de Souza got 1/8th of item no. 25; Amancio and his wife got 1/2 of item no. 25; Maria Elvira de Piedade Souza got 1/8th of item no. 25; and Maria Aurora Joaninha L. de Souza got 1/8th of item no. 25. The Trial Court observed that the said Maria Aurora expired as spinster leaving her father Constancio as sole heir whereas Maria Elvira de Piedade Souza sold her share to Maria Lira Ida de Souza. The Trial Court observed that the above chart has not been disputed by the interested parties. After having considered the said documents, in the above manner, the Trial Court accepted the submissions of head of the family that there is misdescription of the property enlisted under Item No. 39 to the extent of word 'half '. The Trial Court therefore held that the word 'half ' mentioned under Item No. 39 shall stand deleted. 11. Against the said order dated 19/10/2000, the respondent no.1 filed Appeal From Order No. 11 of 2001. The Trial Court therefore held that the word 'half ' mentioned under Item No. 39 shall stand deleted. 11. Against the said order dated 19/10/2000, the respondent no.1 filed Appeal From Order No. 11 of 2001. The learned Single Judge of this Court by Judgment dated 14/10/2008 set aside the said order dated 19/10/2000 since the Trial Court had mentioned in the impugned order that it could not consider the three documents produced on behalf of the Cabeca de Casal, for want of English translation. The learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the Trial Court was bound to consider the said documents and since the same were not considered, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to consider the documents produced by the respondent no.1 as well as by Cabeca de Casal and to pass appropriate order in the light of the order dated 12/04/1999 passed by this Court in Appeal From Order no. 24 of 1998. 12. Thereafter, by order dated 15/01/2009, the learned Trial Court again held that from the documentary evidence produced by the Cabeca de Casal, conclusion can be drawn that subject matter of the inventory proceedings was 7/8th share of the entire property and not 7/8th share of half of the property. 13. The order dated 15/01/2009 of the Trial Court was again challenged by the respondent no.1 before the District Court. In the memo of appeal filed before the District Court, the respondent no.1 alleged that upon perusal of the documents on record, the Trial Court ought to have arrived at the conclusion that the Amancio Pilar de Souza was entitled to 6/8th of the entire property and consequently there was need to have an additional Inventory in respect of 1/8th of half of the dwelling house plus in respect of 2/8th of the dwelling house inherited by Amancio Pilar de Souza from his father. Thus, the respondent no.1 who had initially, by application dated 19/10/1996, prayed before the Trial Court that additional inventory should be held with respect to 1/8th of the dwelling house which is remaining to be partitioned, now in the appeal before the District Court prayed for additional inventory with respect to 1/8th of the half of the dwelling house plus 2/8th of the dwelling house. 14. 14. By detailed order dated 15/07/2013 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2010, the learned First Appellate Court quashed the order dated 15/01/2009 passed by the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to hold additional inventory in respect of the remaining portion of the dwelling house with its courtyard and backyard situated at Duncolim i.e. in respect of 1/8th of the half and 2/8th of the dwelling house. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. 15. Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the entire exercise of respondent no.1 is only to deprive the petitioners of their estate. He pointed out that the present controversy has been created after the final judgment was passed. He pointed out that the inventory was initiated in 1978 and was finally disposed of on 07/03/1994. He submitted that if really something had remained still to be partitioned, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 1 to have identified the said portion by means of survey numbers. He further submitted that in the application filed on 19/10/1996, the respondent no. 1 prayed for additional inventory with respect to 1/8th share of the entire property. The First Appellate Court, without there being any proper application with prayer to that effect, held that additional inventory should be held with respect to 1/8th of the half and 2/8th of the dwelling house. He submitted that there was a inadvertent and genuine misdescription of the Item no. 39 by mentioning the same as 7/8th of half of the dwelling house, instead of 7/8th of the entire. He submitted that from mere reading of the documents produced by head of the family, it was clear beyond doubt that the said Item No. 39 ought to have been 7/8th of the entire dwelling house. He submitted that since this High Court was satisfied about the same, it had directed the Trial Court only to decide whether the inventory was in respect of 7/8th of the half of the property or 7/8th of the entire property. He submitted that since this High Court was satisfied about the same, it had directed the Trial Court only to decide whether the inventory was in respect of 7/8th of the half of the property or 7/8th of the entire property. He submitted that as per the documents, the share of the deceased Amancio Pilar de Souza was 6/8th of the entire property and 1/8th of the said property which was given to Maria Isabela was transferred by her in favour of Amancio, though there is no document about the same, and therefore the item no. 39 was 7/8th of the entire dwelling house. Mr. Almeida submitted that since there was no application at all filed by respondent no.1 for holding an additional inquiry in respect of 1/8th of half of dwelling house plus 2/8th of the entire dwelling house, the question of the First Appellate Court holding that additional inventory should be held in respect of 1/8th of half of the dwelling house and 2/8th of the entire dwelling house does arise. He submitted that there is no identification of the said alleged portion by way of survey numbers. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is perverse and arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that there was no other alternative than to hold that there was misdescription of the property and that the Item No. 39 was 7/8th of the entire dwelling house. He urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 16. On the other hand, Mr. D'Costa the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submitted that the Cabeca de Casal who had filed the list of assets had all the documents with her and knew fully well about the assets but she had described Item No. 39 as 7/8th of ½ of dwelling house. He therefore urged that in such circumstances, it can never be held that there was misdescription. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this was deliberately done by the Cabeca de Casal in order to see that others do not bid in the auction in respect of the dwelling house. He submitted that after the final order was passed, it was found that there was an inventario initiated in the year 1905 upon the death of Emeliana de Souza, wife of Constancio Piedade Felicio de Souza. He submitted that after the final order was passed, it was found that there was an inventario initiated in the year 1905 upon the death of Emeliana de Souza, wife of Constancio Piedade Felicio de Souza. He further submitted that the residential house with backyard was included in that inventory proceedings as Item No. 25 and in the said inventory, half of the entire dwelling house was allotted to Amancio; 1/8th was allotted to widower Constancio and 1/8th each to the three daughters namely Maria Aurora, Maria Isabel Etelvina and Maria Elvira. He further submitted that Maria Aurora died unmarried prior to her father Constancio and therefore her 1/8th share was inherited by the father Constancio. He further submitted that as per the Deed of Partition dated 01/04/1931, 2/8th of the said dwelling house with backyard was allotted to said Amancio. He therefore submitted that Amancio actually had 6/8th share of the entire dwelling house. He submitted that in spite of having all the documents and in spite of knowing very well that Amancio had 6/8th share of the entire house, the Cabeca de Casal described under Item No. 39 only 7/8th of half of the dwelling house. He submitted that the Trial Court could never have considered 6/8th of the entire dwelling house which was to the share of Amancio as equal to 7/8th of the entire house. He submitted that though the contention of Cabeca de Casal to the effect that the share of Amancio was not 7/8th of half is true, however it is not true that the same was 7/8th of entire property. He submitted that it is clear beyond doubt that the share of Amancio was 6/8th of the entire house, with courtyard and backyard. He submitted that in this regard there cannot be any inadvertent or typing mistake by describing the assets as 7/8th of half. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the order of the Trial Court was rightly set aside by the First Appellate Court and that if it is considered that deceased Amancio had 6/8th share of the entire house and if it is taken that what was auctioned was 7/8th of half of the dwelling house then what remains is 1/8th of half plus 2/8th of the entire dwelling house. According to learned Senior Counsel, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with the settled principles of law passed on the basis of uncontroverted documents on record. He submitted that in terms of article 1427 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent no.1 could have prayed for annulment of the inventory which was wrongly held in respect of 7/8th share of half of the dwelling house. He submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the respondent no.1 had filed the application for reopening of the inventory or by taking up additional inventory. 17. In rejoinder, Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there is no answer regarding 1/8th share of Maria Isabela and according to the petitioners, the same had gone to Amancio and therefore Item no. 39 was 7/8th of the entire house. He submitted that doing something more than what was required to be done as per the order of this High Court in Appeal from order no. 24 of 1998, would be judicial indiscipline. He submitted that there is no basis for holding additional inventory after so many years. 18. I have perused the entire material on record. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 19. Indisputably, under the list of assets that was filed by Cabeca de Casal and which was not corrected at any time, description under Item No. 39 was 7/8 of half, as mentioned in paragraph 4 above. The Inventario proceeded in respect of the list of assets as submitted by the Cabeca de Casal without any objections from the interested parties. Therefore, it can be clearly understood that the final order dated 07/03/1994 pertains only to 7/8th of half of the dwelling house with front and back compound wall. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, the Cabeca de Casal had with her all the documents and she was very well aware of the share of late Amancio. In such circumstances, it is not possible at all to hold that there was any misdescription of the assets under Item No. 39. 20. 1, the Cabeca de Casal had with her all the documents and she was very well aware of the share of late Amancio. In such circumstances, it is not possible at all to hold that there was any misdescription of the assets under Item No. 39. 20. There is no dispute that in the year 1905 inventario proceedings, being Inventario No. 978/1905, were initiated upon expiry of Emiliana de Souza who had left behind her widower namely Canstancio de Piedade Souza and four children namely: 1) Maria Isabel Etelvina de Souza married to Albano Franaciso Dias, 2) Amancio Sebastiao Aleixo Roque de Pilar de Souza married to Maria Josefina A. M. Faria, 3) Maria Elvira Piedade de Souza and 4) Maria Aurora Joaninha Lavinia de Souza. Admittedly, in the said inventory proceedings, the said dwelling house with courtyard was described under Item No. 25 and half of the same was allotted to said Amancio; 1/8th to widower Canstancio; 1/8th to Maria Aurora; 1/8th to Maria Isabela; and lastly the remaining 1/8th to Maria Elvira. There is no dispute that Maria Aurora died unmarried without leaving any descendant and during the life time of her father and therefore her 1/8th share was inherited by Constancio. The said Constancio therefore had 2/8th share in the house. Admittedly, in terms of the partition deed dated 01/04/1931, the said 2/8th share of Constancio was allotted to Amancio. Therefore, the share of Amancio became 1/2+2/8=6/8th. According to the Cabeca de Casal, by deed of sale dated 03/04/1953, Maria Elvira de Souza and her husband Feliciano Querobino Teofilo Wenceslau de Sequeira, sold their 1/8th share to Cabeca de Casal namely Maria Lira. Thus, late Amancio owned total of 6/8th share; Maria Lira (Cabeca de Casal) owned 1/8th and remaining 1/8th was owned by Maria Esabela Etelvina de Souza. Though, the Cabeca de Casal says that Maria Isabela Etelvina de Souza transferred her 1/8th share in favour of Amancio, however, admittedly, no such document is there on record. It is therefore not known as whom the said 1/8th share of Maria Isabela, the sister of Amancio and of Maria Lira, went. The Cabeca de Casal has assumed that the said 1/8th of Maria Isabela had gone to Amancio. But, what was included by the Cabeca de Casal in the inventory proceedings was only 7/8th of half of the dwelling house with court yard and backyard. The Cabeca de Casal has assumed that the said 1/8th of Maria Isabela had gone to Amancio. But, what was included by the Cabeca de Casal in the inventory proceedings was only 7/8th of half of the dwelling house with court yard and backyard. It is therefore alleged by the respondent no. 1 that what remains to be partitioned is 1/8th of half plus 2/8th of entire house. 21. There is no doubt that inventory proceedings are of the year 1978 and that initially the respondent no.1, by application dated 19/10/1996 filed before the Trial Court, had prayed for additional inventory only in respect of 1/8th of the entire property. But in the memo of appeal filed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2010, the respondent no. 1 corrected the mistake upon perusal of the documents and therefore prayed that the additional inventory is to be held in respect of 1/8th of half plus 2/8th of the entire house. In my considered view, no one can deny that ultimately the truth should prevail. This is matter amongst the family members and when it can be clearly understood that 1/8th of half of the house and 2/8th of the entire house is remaining balance, there is no point in not holding additional inquiry with regard to the same, as the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings which has to be avoided. Under Article 1427 of the Code of Civil Procedure, annulment of the inventory proceedings could have been prayed for. But the respondent no. 1 has prayed for additional inventory. 22. The Cabeca de Casal, Maria Lira de Souza, according to the petitioners, expired on 29/09/2005 and that the respondent no. 1 did not file any application for bringing her legal heirs on record, in the inventory proceedings or in the Appeal From Order No. 11/2001 or in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27/2010. The Order dated 19/10/2000, passed by the Trial court, in the Inventory proceedings No. 19036/1978 was challenged by the respondent no. 1 by way of Appeal from Order No. 11/2001, during the life time of the Cabeca de Casal. The said Appeal From order No. 11/2001, was disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 11/10/2008, i.e. after the death of said cabeca de Casal. 1 by way of Appeal from Order No. 11/2001, during the life time of the Cabeca de Casal. The said Appeal From order No. 11/2001, was disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 11/10/2008, i.e. after the death of said cabeca de Casal. The learned Counsel for Cabeca de Casal made submissions in the said Appeal From Order, without informing this Court that the respondent no. 1 therein i.e. the Cabeca de Casal had died on 29/09/2005. After remand, the Order dated 15/01/2009 was passed by the Trial Court in Inventory proceedings No. 19036/1978. However, the learned Counsel for the Cabeca de Casal does not appear to have informed the Trial Court about the death of Cabeca de Casal on 29/9/2005 or before that. Even in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27/2010, the learned Counsel for the Cabeca de Casal did not inform the First appellate Court about the death of the Cabeca de Casal. But, in the said Miscellaneous Civil appeal, the present petitioners were parties. The point of death of the Cabeca de Casal was not raised before the lower Courts. Appropriate steps, if necessary, can be taken now before the Trial court, in the additional Inventory. 23. Considering the above facts, I am of the view that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly decided the matter by appreciating the documents in the right perspective. I do not see any perversity in the impugned judgment and order. In my view, the petition does not bear any substance and deserves to be dismissed outright. 24. In the result, the petition is dismissed.