The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mother had no right to execute a Will in favor of the defendant as per the French Code, and the defendant failed to prove the execution of the Will as required by the Indian Evidence Act.

The defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikal is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for partition claiming half share in suit A and B schedule properties. The suit was decreed as prayed for, which resulted in filing of the present appeal by the defendant/appellant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant, as they were arrayed before the trial court.

.3. The Plaintiff and defendant are sisters born to Paul Pacroni Ignace and Pajani Ammalle @ Lourde Marie Paul. The said Paul Parconi Ignace was a Brigadier in the French Army and he possessed extensive properties in Karaikal and Pondicherry, which were acquired out of his own funds. The said properties are the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Mr. Paul Pacroni Ignace died on 15.06.1968 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Pajani Ammalle and two daughters, the plaintiff and defendant herein. According to the plaintiff, the properties left out by their father are morefully described in the schedule hereunder. Her father left behind a Will by which the entire property acquired by him were given to his wife Pajani Ammalle to be enjoyed till her life time. Her mother Pajani Ammalle executed a Will during 1992 and thereafter cancelled it. According to the plaintiff, as per the French Law, with or without a Will, the widow holds the property entirely until her life time and thereafter, the children can take them equally. It is further stated that her mother Pajani Ammalle has made some improvements in the properties from and out of the pension received by her, especially for the house at Gnanaprakasam Street, Karaikal. The Plaintiff, her husband and their children are living at France by reason of their occupation and education. The defendant was with the mother, assisting her and the mother was depending the defendant entirely due to her ill health. On 03.09.1993, Pajani Ammalle died at Karaikal. At the time of her death, Pajani Ammalle had jewels in the residential house and also in the locker at State Bank of India. According to the plaintiff, the widow Pajani Ammalle has no extended right over the properties of her husband than the one conferred by law. It was further contended that the dwelling house is constructed in such a manner that it has two separate houses connected by a path. It has been built as two independent houses with a connecting pathway so as to be enjoyed by the plaintiff and defendant equally.

.4. According to the plaintiff, when the plaintiff visited the defendant in the suit house, the defendant told the plaintiff that the mother had left a Will bequeathing the entire property in her favour. According to the plaintiff, the mother had no testamentary capacity on the property of her husband. Even if there is a Will, it will be of no consequences and when the same was directed to be produced, the defendant did not do so. Thereafter, since the plaintiff had to return to France, she had issued a notice dated 03.07.1998 to the defendant for which no reply was sent. Therefore, after coming to India, the plaintiff collected the information regarding the properties acquired by her father and mother and thereafter suit was filed for the relief of partition. The Plaintiff also sought the leave of the trial court to permit her to add some other properties which may be left out at the time of filing the suit. According to the plaintiff, under French Law, the plaintiff and the defendant are the sole surviving legal heirs and therefore they are entitled to divide the properties into each half share, hence, the suit is maintainable.

5. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit is speculative in nature. The Plaintiff, knowing fully well that she cannot claim any share in the suit property, has filed the present suit. The Plaintiff never asked for a share from this defendant, however, with a