In its judgment of 30 April 2019 (Ref. No. I CSK 79/18), the Supreme Court stated that those obliged to pay a reserved share may not, in the proceedings for the descendants 'descendants’ charge, make the charge of dispossession unfounded. In order to refute disinheritance, he must institute a separate process in which the party will also be disinherited.
Determining the groundlessness of disinheritance may be beneficial for the person obliged to pay a reserved share if the inherited share would be less than for his descendants (i.e. when the disinherited is of legal age and has the right to a reserved portion of 1/2 inheritance share, and his descendant is a minor and has the right to a larger share (2/3 of the inheritance share.
It should be added that in the case of establishing the groundlessness of disinheritance brought by a testamentary heir against the inherited descendant of the testator and the descendant of the disinherited, the minor should be represented by a guardian appointed by a guardianship court (Article 99 in conjunction with Article 98 § 2 point 2 and § 3 of the Civil Code) – cf. resolution of the Supreme Court of 13 March 2008, III CZP 1/08, OSNC 2009, No. 4, item 52.
Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the interpretation presented in the resolution of the Supreme Court of April 22, 1975, III CZP 15/75, OSNC 1976, No. 3, item 38.