Panaji, Dec 26 (TOI): The high court of Bombay at Goa recently set aside the prosecution of two sisters who were charged for allegedly stealing 3,000 mangoes from their ancestral property. The complaint had been filed by their brother claiming that he was the administrator of the property.

Quashing the FIR registered by the police in 2008 and the charges framed by a trial court against Margao-based Vaz sisters, Sulochana, 60, and Zoraida, 62, the high court held that that in this case the brother could not have been the owner of the properties of inheritance "only because he was appointed as an administrator of the properties left by their parents". The complainant, Franscisco Vaz, had not stated in his complaint that he was in possession of disputed property, the court noted.

While stating that the sisters took the mangoes under bonafide claim of rights, Justice N A Britto noted, "As seen from Article 2085 of the Civil Code 1867, an administrator can collect fruits only in case he is in possession of the property. It is to be noted that the petitioners who are the accused did not even take all the mangoes but only took two baskets leaving behind a third to be taken either by the complainant or his licensee."

In this case, on October 3, 2008, the police registered an FIR against the Vaz sisters for stealing mangoes valued at Rs 15,000.

According to the complainant, the mangoes were stolen after they were plucked by a licensee and kept in baskets. Subsequently, the trial court framed charges against the duo in 2009. Later, the trail court's order was confirmed by the sessions court. The sisters then challenged their prosecution in the high court.

Arguing on behalf of sisters, senior counsel S D Lotlikar submitted that they had taken their shares of mangoes on the basis of a will made by their father. Lotlikar pointed out that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature, and taking mangoes under a bonafide claim cannot amount to theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He also stated that the brother had produced no document to support his ownership and he could not be the owner when the properties were yet to be allotted in the inventory proceedings.

On the other hand, Fransisco's lawyer Sudesh Usgaonkar submitted that his client was entitled to collect all the fruits and income from the properties by virtue of Article 2085 of the Civil Code as he was appointed as an administrator in the inventory proceedings. The administrator has the right to the estate until the partition of the property is finalized, Usgaonkar claimed.

Finally, the court remarked thus: "A perusal of the will shows how much the father of the parties desired that they should remain united after his death, but they have chosen a warring path. It is unfortunate that the complainant having been appointed as the administrator has not filed till date the list of immovable properties belonging to the estate of their parents."