In these parlays of the inevitable passage of time duelling with the subversion of destiny, where does the middle ground lie whereby peace may find a way to intermingle with serenity?
For if not the jewels of justice, at least a worthy consolatory appeasement would lie in spending the remaining life left in the nutshell of bliss where ignorance no longer stands guard against the consensual relinquishment of self-interests in return of self actualisation as an ardent measure of well-informed coexistence.
This is where, a Goan who is entitled for Portuguese Nationality would be optimally advantaged in choosing to move to a city in Portugal and just choose to forget the competitiveness which accompanies the litigation that besots the crystallisation of inheritance and which could even be as long in duration as the Portuguese occupation of Colonial Goa.
Because when a Goan decides to move to Portugal and simply forgets the roots of their respective ancestry, it is because the thought of staying back and enduring the ceaseless race of generational preference has now seemed wholly unappetising to the peace and composure of the neglected middle-aged generation.
While it may represent a customary practice amongst Goan families of Indo-Portuguese ancestral origins to obtain an ante-nuptial agreement from the daughters with the provision of a fixed amount as compensation in consideration of their future legitime which they would stand to inherit from their respective parents subsequently.
Such an agreement was however barred by Article 2042 of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 and continues to be barred by virtue of Section 40 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.
Before delving into the subject which concerns future renunciation of inheritance rights, it would be apt to understand that “renunciation” or “repudiation of heirship” means the relinquishment of the inheritance made by a person entitled to inherit by succession and to succeed.
Incidentally, Section 40 provides for “Prohibition to renounce” wherein it has been specified that “No person is permitted to renounce, whether in the ante-nuptial agreement or otherwise, the right to any future inheritance or to alienate or create a charge on the rights which he may eventually have to any inheritance.”
In order to obtain a better understanding of the implications that Article 2042 imposes upon the estate of the parents and the succession of the heirs, pertinent observations from relevant case laws are enunciated:
In Joao Cardoso Vs. Ethelvina Cardoso Rodrigues (2009), the hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa on 21st July, 2009 observed:
“16. Reference to Article 2042 of the said Civil Code appears to have been made only to confuse the issue. The first deed is styled as a deed of ante-nuptial contract and second deed as deed of acquittance and ante-nuptial contract. By the first anti-nuptial contract dated 11-10-1950 which was entered into by the said Maria Linda Cardoso all that was stated, as far as the present controversy is concerned, is that the said Maria Linda Cardoso had accepted a sum of Rs. 3000/- as gift on account of her future paternal and maternal legitime making her liable to compensate the excess which by chance may arise in her disposable share. Likewise, what is recorded in the deed dated 23-12-1959, inter alia, is that the said Albertina Cardoso had received 6000 “escudos” towards the owelty allotted to her in the inventory of her mother Dominga Maria Gonsalves. It was also acknowledged that Rs. 3000/- were given to her by her father on account of her future paternal legitime. The deeds amply make it clear that both the daughters were given the said sums of money, i.e. Rs. 3000/- each in the first case on account of her future paternal and maternal legitime and in the second case on account of her future paternal legitime, since by then their mother had expired. What is legitime? Legitime is the portion which a testator cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for his lineal descendants and ascendants. In other words legitime is part of the estate of the deceased whereof the forced heirs cannot be deprived of by the deceased by a gratuitous title or other than for valuable consideration… They did not lose the right to claim inheritance of their parents/father by accepting the said gifts. They only had to adjust the gifts from their share in the value of the estate being determined with reference to the date of death of estate leaver(s). …Suffice to observe that when gifts are given to the daughters at the time of their marriage as is customary in many families, who are forced or mandatory heirs, they are considered as payments in anticipation of their individual shares and they are to be brought back to the mass of inheritance at the time of partition for the purpose of equalisation of shares in the estate. There is no question of they having renounced or relinquished any share which they might have had acquired in the other properties of their parents acquired or to be acquired. The property under dispute was acquired by their father in the year 1974 and upon his death all the children would have acquired an undivided right to the same…”
In this sense, the date of opening of the inheritance of the parents as estate leavers is the date on which the ancestor passed away. For only from this date onwards can it be presumed that the right to inheritance shall now stand vested in the heirs of that estate leaver.
