Alienations of his share made by father can not be termed as void by his sons.

Srinivasan, J.

This thirty year old litigation was initiated by Sundararaja Bagavadar, son of Nannayya Bagavadar, for a declaration that the donation of 17th February, 1949 made by the latter had absorbed in full the disposable quota and consequently the former was the owner of l/3rd share in the undivided properties, being the subject matter of donations dated 17th March, 1959 and 27th July, 1960 and the will dated 27th February, 1961 executed by the latter and for partition besides other reliefs. Even before the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiff died and his three sons came on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4 to continue the litigation. Nannayya Bagavadar had two wives, Sankara Ammal and Ranganayaki Ammal. Through his first wife, he had two daughters and three sons. The eldest son was the first plaintiff. The sons of the second son were impleaded as plaintiffs 5 to 9 and after the death of the 6th plaintiff, his legal representatives came on record as plaintiffs 10 to 12. The third son was the fifth defendant in the suit and on his death, his daughter was impleaded as 6th defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 are the daughter and son-in-law of Ranganayaki Ammal, the second wife of Nannayya Bagavadar. Defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of Nannayya through his first wife Sankara Ammal. Nannayya Bagavadar died on 2. 1962.

.2. In the plaint as originally filed, the plaintiff claimed that as per Art.913 of Code Civil, l/4th of the estate of Nannayya Bagavadar was within his disposable quota and the remaining 3/4th fell within the reserve, which devolved on the three sons of Nannayya exclusively. The case of the plaintiff was that on 12. 1949, a deed of donation was executed by Nannayya giving properties to the three sons and reserving certain properties for himself. The properties given to the three sons absorbed the entire disposable quota of Nannayya and his deeds of donation executed later on 12th March, 1959 and 27th July, 1960 besides his will dated 22. 1961 under which he gave properties to his daughters and grand-children were ineffective as against the rights of his three sons with the result that the plaintiff was entitled to get l/3rd share out of the reserve properties. The plaint proceeded on the footing that the law applicable to the parties was that found in Code Civil and reliance was placed on Arts. 913, 923, 925 and 815 thereof. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and it was alleged that the customary Hindu law which was prevailing in Pondicherry was applicable to the parties and the disposable quota of Nannayya was only l/8th share and that 7/8th of the estate formed the reserve.

3. The suit was mainly contested by defendants 1 and 2. The 6th defendant left the matter to the court. The defence was that the territorial law viz. the Code Civil was applicable, under which all the children, males and females of Nannayya, would have equal shares. Alternatively it was contended that the Hindu Succession Act was applicable to the parties. It was also contended that deed of 112. 1949 giving properties to the sons was null and void and the donations made under the later documents should be debited against the disposable quota and they fell within the same.

4. The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry disposed of the suit on 1. 1975. It was found that Nannayya did not belong to the indigenous stock of French Nationals and, therefore, the local customary Hindu Law would not apply. It was held that the parties were governed by the territorial law, viz., the French Code Civil and the disposable quota of Nannayya was l/4th and the remaining 3/4th devolved on his sons and daughters. It was held that the sons of Nannayya were given more than their shares in the reserve under the deed dated 12. 1969 and they were not entitled to anything in the properties disposed of by Nannayya. Consequently, a preliminary decree was passed with reference to properties not covered by any of the gifts or the will, directing division