Married daughter denied inheritance in Goa because of a rent law. Supreme Court says: wrong law.

```html

Her brother said she couldn't inherit the family shop because she was married. The law he used was meant for landlords and tenants, not siblings.

In a tiny courtroom in Margao, Goa, a sister sat across from her brother. The wooden bench creaked under the weight of the file. A stack of yellowed rent receipts sat on the table between them. They were not fighting over a house or land or gold. They were fighting over a rented shop — a leasehold premises that had been in the family for decades. The brother had drawn up a list of everything their parents left behind. The shop was not on it. When the sister asked why, he pointed to a single phrase in an old rent law: the definition of "tenant" did not include married daughters.

The sister was not a tenant, he argued. She was a married woman. And under the Goa Rent Act, that meant she had no right to the shop at all.

The question that hung over this case was simple: Could a rent control law — written to protect tenants from eviction — be used to decide who inherits a family business? The Supreme Court would have to answer whether a married daughter could be written out of her own inheritance by a law that had nothing to do with succession.

When the brother drew up the list

The list was written in blue ink on ruled paper. The brother crossed out the shop with a single line. The parents of the appellants and the respondent had run a partnership firm called 'Ramnath Anant Kesarkar' in Margao, Goa. The business operated from a leased premises — a shop rented from a landlord. When the father died in 1985, the mother continued. When the mother died in 1998, the property — including the leasehold interest in the shop — should have passed to both children.

But the brother had other ideas. He filed inventory proceedings (a legal process to list and divide a deceased person's assets) to partition the estate. In the list of assets he submitted, the lease premises was missing. The sister objected. She wanted the shop included so she could claim her share.

The brother's defence was technical. He cited Section 2(o) of the Goa Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 — the Goa Rent Act. That section defined "tenant" in a way that excluded married daughters. Since the sister was married, he argued, she was not a tenant under the Act. Therefore, she had no right to the leasehold premises.

The trap of a rent law

At first glance, the brother's argument seemed plausible. The Goa Rent Act was designed to protect tenants from arbitrary eviction. Its definition of "tenant" included certain family members — but not married daughters. If the sister was not a tenant, how could she claim the shop?

The Inventory Court (the trial court handling the division of assets) agreed with the brother. So did the Bombay High Court, sitting at Goa. Both courts held that the married daughter had no right to the lease premises because the Rent Act's definition excluded her.

But the sister's lawyers saw the trap. The Goa Rent Act, they argued, governs disputes between landlords and tenants — not disputes between siblings over inheritance. The question was not whether the sister was a tenant. The question was whether she was an heir.

Why the Supreme Court looked at a different law

The courtroom fell silent as the judgment was read. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the bench — Justice M.R. Shah and Justice L. Nageswara Rao — did something the lower courts had not. They looked at the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 — the law that actually governs how property passes after death in Goa.

Under Sections 5, 9, 52, and 68 of this Act, the court found something striking: there is no distinction between a married daughter, an unmarried daughter, and a son. All children inherit equally. Section 399 of the same Act expressly includes "leases" in the list of assets that must be included in inventory proceedings.

The court also examined the Portuguese Civil Code (Decree No. 43525), which had governed succession in Goa before the 2012 Act. Under that Code too, married daughters had equal succession rights. The 2012 Act had merely codified what was already the law.

The court held that the Goa Rent Act governs disputes between landlord and tenant regarding rent control and eviction. Its provisions — including the definition of 'tenant' under Section 2(o) — have no application to succession or inventory proceedings under the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 or the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code.

The moment the brother's argument collapsed

The court's reasoning was devastatingly simple. A rent control law cannot be used to decide who inherits property. That is what succession laws are for. The brother had used the wrong legal instrument — and the lower courts had let him get away with it.

The Supreme Court held that the married daughter had an equal right of succession in the lease premises. The shop should have been included in the list of assets from the beginning. The Inventory Court and the High Court had both erred by applying the Rent Act to a succession dispute.

There was one more complication. During the appeal, the Inventory Court had already drawn a final partition chart dividing the assets — without the shop. The brother argued that the appeal had become pointless because the division was complete. The Supreme Court rejected this. Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 allows a court to amend a partition if assets were wrongly excluded. The appeal was very much alive.

The deeper history of the dispute

The case, formally titled Uma Mahesh Bandekar and Another v. Vivek Sadanand Marathe and Others, had travelled a long road before reaching the Supreme Court. It began as Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C before the IIIrd Additional Adhoc Senior Civil Judge in Margao. On 2 June 2015, the Inventory Court dismissed the sister's objections. The file sat on the judge's desk, thin and ordinary, but carrying the weight of a family's future.

The sister appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa. On 5 May 2016, the High Court dismissed her appeal from order. The smell of old paper and the quiet shuffle of advocates filled the corridors. The sister's lawyers argued that the lower court had misread the law, but the High Court agreed with the brother. Two courts had now told the sister she had no claim to the shop where her parents had worked for decades.

She did not give up. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, numbered SLP (C) No. 15949/2016. The petition argued that the Goa Rent Act had been applied to a succession dispute — a fundamental legal error. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal, and on 13 March 2019, the bench delivered its verdict.

The precise legal architecture the court used

The Supreme Court's judgment rested on a careful reading of multiple provisions. Under Section 3 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, "succession" is defined in a way that includes all forms of property. Section 5 lists the types of successors without any gender-based distinction. Section 9 confirms that all children — married or unmarried, male or female — are competent to succeed. Section 52 lays out the order of legal succession, again without discrimination.

Section 68 specifically addresses succession of children and descendants. The court read this section alongside Section 399, which requires that leases be included in the initial list of assets. Together, these provisions created a clear framework: a married daughter inherits leasehold property just as a son does.

The court also considered Section 59 of the Goa Rent Act, which deals with repeal and savings. It concluded that nothing in the Rent Act could override the succession regime. The two laws operate in entirely different spheres — one governs the relationship between landlord and tenant, the other governs who gets what when someone dies.

The court cited the precedent of Mohammad Laiquiddin v. Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) by Lrs. — (2010) 2 SCC 407, which reinforced the principle that succession laws must be interpreted broadly to include all heirs.

The operative order and its consequences

The Supreme Court's order was clear and final. The appeal succeeded. The orders of the Inventory Court and the High Court were quashed and set aside. The court held that the married daughter shall have a right of succession in the lease premises, and the same ought to have been included in the list of assets in the inventory proceedings.

Because a final partition chart had already been drawn on 31 July 2017 in Regular Inventory Proceeding No. 11/2013/C, the court directed that the partition be amended under Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. No order as to costs was made — each party would bear its own expenses.

The judgment sent a ripple through the legal community in Goa. For years, families had relied on the Rent Act's narrow definition to exclude married daughters from leasehold businesses. The Supreme Court had now closed that door permanently.

What this means for every family business in Goa

For practitioners dealing with succession matters in Goa, this judgment draws a bright line. The Goa Rent Act is about landlords and tenants. The Inventory Proceeding Act is about heirs and inheritance. Mixing them up can cost a client their rightful share.

The case also settles a question that had troubled families for years: Can a married daughter be excluded from a leasehold business simply because she married? The answer is no. Under Goa's succession law, a daughter — married or not — stands exactly where a son stands.

THE PLAY: When listing assets in inventory proceedings, include leasehold interests — and never let a rent control law override succession rights.

The shop was finally added to the list.

```