It was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019) that the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, though colonial in origin, operates today not as foreign law but as an integral component of the Indian legal system.
This conclusion was reached upon an examination of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, which enabled the continuation of pre-liberation laws subject to constitutional conformity.
It was observed that the Code derives its authority not from Portuguese sovereignty, but from its recognition by the Indian Parliament, thereby transforming its character into that of domestic law.
Three core principles
Three significant legal principles were crystallised in the Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019) judgment, each of which continues to shape the jurisprudence of the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Firstly, the doctrine of unity of succession was affirmed. It was held that the estate of a Goan domicile, whether movable or immovable and irrespective of geographical location, must be governed by a single, uniform system of law. This principle ensures that succession is not fragmented across jurisdictions.
Secondly, the Court emphasised that the Civil Code is not a foreign law, thereby rejecting the applicability of private international law principles. It was expressly held that the Code forms part of Indian law and must be applied as such.
Thirdly, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of legÃtima, which imposes a structural limitation on testamentary freedom. It was clarified that a testator is not at liberty to dispose of the entirety of his estate, as a mandatory portion is reserved for forced heirs, typically lineal descendants or ascendants.
These principles collectively establish a framework of substantive uniformity in Goan succession law.
Statutory evolution
The evolution of Goan succession law is further reflected in the enactment of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, which consolidates and modernises aspects of succession while retaining the core principles of the Civil Code.
The Act, 2012 preserves the concepts of forced heirship, structured succession, and inventory proceedings, thereby demonstrating continuity rather than departure. The legal system in Goa thus reflects a hybrid structure, wherein colonial doctrines are adapted to operate within a modern statutory framework.
Procedural dissonance
Despite the clarity achieved in substantive law, a divergence in procedural practice came to light in the recent judgment of Blinston Savio Fernandes v. Leandra Marie Fernandes (2026).
In that case, a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court at Bangalore was presented before the Sub-Registrar in Goa for implementation. The Registrar refused to act upon the decree, treating it as a “foreign judgment” requiring confirmation under Articles 1100 to 1102 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939.
This administrative position necessitated judicial intervention.
Judicial correction
The Division Bench of the High Court decisively rejected the classification of Indian court decrees as foreign judgments. It was held that once the Civil Code itself has been recognised as Indian law, it would be impermissible to treat judicial decisions rendered by courts within India as foreign in character.
The Court further clarified that the expression “foreign court” within the Portuguese procedural framework refers to courts external to the Portuguese legal system, and not to courts operating within the Indian constitutional structure.
Accordingly, it was held that Registrars in Goa are bound by decrees passed by competent civil courts across India and cannot insist upon their confirmation as foreign judgments.
Doctrinal alignment
The High Court’s reasoning reflects a direct application of the principles laid down in Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019). Two key areas of consonance may be identified.
Firstly, the rejection of the “foreign law” character of the Civil Code was extended to procedural interpretation. If the Code is Indian law, then the procedural apparatus cannot selectively revive its foreign identity.
Secondly, the principle of legal unity was reinforced. Just as the Supreme Court rejected fragmentation in succession law, the High Court rejected fragmentation in procedural recognition.
The jurisprudential continuity between the two decisions is therefore evident.
Systemic implications
The persistence of outdated procedural practices, particularly the treatment of Indian decrees as foreign, has resulted in avoidable delays and multiplicity of proceedings. Litigants have been compelled to approach the High Court for confirmation of decrees that are otherwise valid and binding.
Such practices undermine the efficiency of the legal system and introduce uncertainty into the enforcement of rights.
The High Court’s intervention may therefore be regarded as a necessary step towards ensuring procedural coherence.
Uniformity reconsidered
Goa is frequently cited as a model for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code in India. However, the recent developments indicate that uniformity cannot be assessed solely in terms of substantive law.
It must extend to procedural practice as well.
A legal system cannot simultaneously treat a law as domestic in substance and foreign in application. Such inconsistency weakens the integrity of the system.
Conclusion drawn
It is thus evident that the judgment in Jose Paulo Coutinho continues to exert a decisive influence on the legal landscape in Goa. The High Court’s ruling in Blinston Savio Fernandes represents a logical extension of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The alignment of procedural practice with substantive doctrine marks a significant step towards achieving true legal uniformity.
Until such alignment is consistently implemented across all administrative and judicial forums, the promise of a uniform civil code in Goa shall remain incomplete in its practical operation.
