JUDGMENT M.S.SONAK - Heard Mr. V.R. Tamba alongwith Mr. Vibhav R. Amonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.03.2018 made by the Adhoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Mapusa dismissing the petitioner's appeal against order dated 19.10.2011 made by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa in inventory proceedings No. 316/99/A. 3. Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the petitioner No. 2, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1 was neither impleaded as a party nor given any notice of the auction proceedings in the inventory. He submits that such impleadment and/or notice was a must because the petitioner No. 2, as a moiety holder, also had right, title and interest in the properties which were the subject matter of the inventory proceedings. Mr. Tamba referred to some decisions, including the decision in the case of Zacarias Durate Domingos Pereira vs. Camilo Inacio Evaristo Pereira 1990(1) GLT 174 and Aruna Devi N. Gaekwad vs. Sanjita Udaisingh Sardessai 2000 (2) GLT 479 in support of the proposition advanced by him. 4. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the respondents joins issue with the submissions made by Mr. Tamba. He submits that the decisions cited by Mr. Tamba are distinguishable because, in the said matters, there was failure to issue notice to persons who were entitled to participate in the auction proceedings. He submits that in the present case the husband of the petitioner No. 2, has taken part in the auction proceedings and as a moiety holder, the petitioner had no independent right as such. Mr. Menezes submits that the issue raised is covered in favour of the respondent by the decision of this Court in Ranjit Satardekar vs. Clotildes Fernandes 2006(4) All MR. 223. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, the submissions of Mr. Menezes, in the peculiar facts of the present case deserve acceptance. This is a matter where the petitioner No. 1, who is the husband of petitioner No. 2 was duly served in the proceedings and has also taken part in the inventory proceedings. 223. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, the submissions of Mr. Menezes, in the peculiar facts of the present case deserve acceptance. This is a matter where the petitioner No. 1, who is the husband of petitioner No. 2 was duly served in the proceedings and has also taken part in the inventory proceedings. In Ranjit Satardekar (supra), the learned Single Judge has held non-service of notice to the moiety holder of the heir, does not vitiate the inventory proceedings or in any case, the auction held in the inventory proceedings. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Tamba are indeed distinguishable and have been correctly distinguished in paragraph 22 of the impugned order. 6. In Ranjit Satardekar (supra), this is what has been held in paragraph 12 by the learned Single Judge: '12. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the expression moiety refers to the moiety holder of the heir. If the expression "the heirs and the moiety holder spouse" is interpreted in a manner suggested on behalf of appellant then we will be admitting to licitation the heirs and their spouses by leaving the moiety holder out of the licitation which could never have been the intention of the Legislator. It is interesting to note that the heirs (herdeiros) are referred to in plural and moiety holder (conjuge meeiro) is referred to in singular and therefore the expression moiety holder cannot be interpreted to be referring to the moiety holder spouses of the heirs. The expression is not "the heirs and their moiety holders" (os herdeiros e seus conjuges meeiros) but "the heirs and the moiety holder" (os herdeiros e o conjuge meeiro)." 7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no case made out to warrant interference with the impugned order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.