The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, which elevate the surviving spouse in the order of intestate succession and make consequential changes to allied provisions, are constitutionally valid and do not suffer from manifest arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court asserted that the legislature was competent to “rectify” the order of legal succession, and giving precedence to the surviving spouse after descendants is supported by a rational determining principle, particularly in light of Goa’s matrimonial property regime and the superior status accorded to spouses in comparable succession statutes.
The Court further held that under the Statutory scheme of Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012, a right in inheritance vests upon the death of the estate leaver by virtue of Sections 8 and 13, but where there are multiple claimants, the precise and exclusive share of each heir crystallizes only upon partition or completion of inventory proceedings. On that construction, the Goa (Amendment) Bill No.26 of 2023 is not liable to be struck down as impermissibly retrospective because the Explanation to Section 52 preserves crystallized rights and applies the amended succession order only to pending cases and appeals where rights had not yet crystallized into finalized shares.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan traced the Goa succession regime to the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, continued in force after liberation by virtue of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, and later codified through the 2012 Act. It noted that the 2012 Act substantially incorporated the succession structure of the Civil Code, including the rule that succession opens upon death and ownership and possession of inheritance are transmitted at that moment, while also providing for inventory and partition procedures where multiple heirs claim the inheritance.
On the constitutional standard, the Bench reiterated that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, that the legislature is presumed to understand and correctly appreciate the needs of the people, and that judicial scrutiny of legislation is confined to competence and constitutional infirmity, including violation of fundamental rights. It emphasized that hardship, alleged unwisdom, or disagreement with legislative policy is not a ground to invalidate a statute.
While dealing with Article 14, the Bench accepted that legislation may be struck down for impermissible classification or manifest arbitrariness, and held that there was no arbitrariness in resetting the order of succession to place the surviving spouse immediately after descendants. It reasoned that in Goa’s matrimonial system, especially under the default communion of assets, the surviving spouse occupies a position superior to other relations except descendants; the spouse already shares the marital estate as moiety holder, and the legislature was justified in considering the spouse more suited to take the deceased’s share in the absence of descendants.
The Bench reinforced this conclusion by comparing the Goa amendment with succession schemes under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, observing that under those statutes too the widow/widower is accorded a superior position over other heirs or kindred. On that basis, it held that the State Legislature was justified in bringing Goa’s scheme in line with a broader recognition of the surviving spouse’s superior status, and that the change could not be described as irrational or manifestly arbitrary.
On retrospectivity, the Bench examined the settled principles that statutes are ordinarily prospective unless clearly expressed or necessarily implied to be retrospective, but that the legislature is competent to enact retrospective laws, including laws affecting vested rights, subject to constitutional limitations. It also distinguished between retrospectivity and retroactivity, and observed that legislation enacted for community benefit or to cure an acknowledged mischief may be given retrospective effect.
The Bench significantly explained the meaning of vested and crystallized rights under the 2012 Act. The Court rejected the State’s contention that no right vests in an heir until completion of inventory proceedings. It held that, under Sections 8 and 13, succession opens on death and ownership and possession of the inheritance are transmitted immediately to the heirs; therefore, the right does vest once succession opens. However, where there are multiple heirs, their rights remain indivisible until partition, and the actual demarcation or identification of each heir’s share gets crystallized only upon completion of inventory proceedings or partition.
The Bench then construed the Explanation appended to Section 52 by the 2023 amendment as saving the amendment from being fully retrospective in an offending sense. According to the Bench, although the amendment was deemed to have come into force on December 21, 2016, the Explanation expressly preserved rights that had crystallized before enactment of the 2023 Act, while applying the amended order of succession to pending cases and appeals where rights had not yet crystallized. The Bench treated the Explanation as clarificatory of the intended reach of the amendment and as a legitimate device to distinguish between crystallized rights and pending disputes.
The Bench also rejected the argument based on ante-nuptial agreements and decisional autonomy in the regime of separation of assets. It held that while spouses may regulate their proprietary relationship inter se during subsistence of marriage through ante-nuptial arrangements, upon the death of one spouse, succession and inheritance are governed by the 2012 Act, and the surviving spouse would inherit in accordance with that statutory scheme without discrimination.
Briefly, the petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, which amended Sections 52, 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012. The principal challenge was that the amendments altered the order of intestate succession by elevating the surviving spouse in priority and that the 2023 amendment, deemed effective from December 21, 2016, retrospectively divested vested rights and imposed arbitrary restrictions on disposition of estate, allegedly offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
In Writ Petition No. 81 of 2025, the petitioner, Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias, claimed entitlement to the estate of his deceased brother who died intestate on May 31, 2022, leaving immovable properties in Goa. His case was that, under the unamended law in force on the date of death, ownership and possession of the inheritance stood transmitted to him and his siblings in terms of Sections 13 and 52 of the 2012 Act, there being no descendants or ascendants. He contended that the 2022 amendment altered the order of succession by placing the surviving spouse after descendants, and that the 2023 amendment, with retrospective effect, deprived him of rights already vested on the brother’s death.
In Writ Petition No. 2486 of 2025 (F), the petitioners were the parents of Late Siddesh Shantaram Chanekar, who died on March 22, 2019, leaving behind his widow but no offspring. They asserted that, under the unamended Section 52 of the 2012 Act prevailing at the time of death, they as legal ascendants were entitled to precedence over the surviving spouse. However, after the 2022 amendment and the retrospective 2023 amendment, the widow applied for deletion of the parents as interested parties from the inventory proceedings, and her application was allowed.
The petitioners in WP No. 2486 of 2025 further pleaded that for more than a century, under the Portuguese Civil Code regime applicable in Goa, parents stood next in line of succession in the absence of descendants, and that the amendment disturbed the historical and conceptual basis of succession under Goa’s unique matrimonial property system of communion of assets. According to them, marriage being treated as a civil contract under the Portuguese Civil Code, the surviving spouse was historically placed below descendants, ascendants, and siblings and their descendants, and the amended Section 52 departed from that settled legal structure.
The two intervention applications were filed by persons asserting that the outcome of the constitutional challenge would affect their own succession disputes and civil rights under the Goa regime. One intervener sought impleadment because of his interest in pending inventory proceedings, while the other set of interveners, including practicing advocates, supported the challenge on the footing that the amended succession waterfall directly affected rights under the Civil Code and was manifestly arbitrary.
Appearance
in Writ Petition No.81 of 2025:
Ashwin Ramani, Advocate for the Petitioner
Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with N. Vernekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1
Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Shivan Desai with A. Thorat and Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the Applicant in MCA No.2610 of 2015 (F)
Gauravvardhan Nadkarni, Advocate for the Applicant in MCA No.2666 of 2025 (F)
Appearance in Writ Petition No. 2486 of 2025 (F):
Nigel Da Costa Frias with Shane Coutinho, Advocates for the Petitioners
Somnath Karpe with S. Vaigankar and Siddhi Parodkar, Advocates for Respondent No.1
Devidas Pangam, Advocate General a/w Maria Simone Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2
