The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on authentic French documents to establish ancestral property claims and the rejection of unsubstantiated third-party ownership pleas.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in O.S.No.48 of 1997, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

(i) The first plaintiff is the mother of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendant. The plaintiffs are occupying the house property bearing Door No.11, Netheeswaramkoilpathu and the defendant is occupying with his family members, the western portion of the same building bearing Municipal Door No.11/1. The said house property and the garden appurtenant thereto comprised in Ward C, Block 4 T.S.No.115 R.S.No.147/3pt, Cadastre No.300pt 78Ca; Ward C Block 4, T.S.No.117, R.S.No.147/3pt, 147/1pt, Cadastre Nos.300pt and 301 pt 04A 19Ca and Ward C, Block 4, T.S.No.118, R.S.No.147/3pt, Cadastre No.300pt. 00A 21Ca at Netheeswaram, Koilpathu is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendant.

(ii) The first plaintiffs husband Sri Pattu Gurukkal @ Balasubramania Gurukkal also known as Pattappa, during his life time on 24.08.1981 as owner of the suit property mortgaged it in favour of S.Sri Mahamood Maricar S/o Haji MM.Syed Ahamed Maricar and his brother Sri M.S.Mohamed Hussain Saibu Maricar of Karaikal. Subsequently, the said mortgage was discharged on 10.09.1984. Thereafter, one other mortgage was created by the same Pattu Gurukkal on 31.05.1986. Part of the mortgage debt was discharged by Pattu Gurukkal himself and the remaining debt was discharged by the defendant herein. The defendant even though happened to be the eldest son in the family, had no regard for the plaintiffs, who are entitled to 1/4 share each, totally to an extent of 3/4 share in the entire suit property and the defendant is entitled to 1/4 share in it. In fact, the defendant is in occupation of one half of the property to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. Despite incessant demands made by the plaintiffs, there is no response from the defendant for amicable settlement. Hence the suit.

3. Per contra, remonstrating and refuting, gainsaying and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement on various averments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The suit property does not belong to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendant, but it belongs to Sri Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Alayam, Nigheeswaram Koilpathu, Karaikal which was founded by the ancestors of Sami Mudaliar, Govindasamy Mudaliar and Sokalinga Mudaliar and they endowed large extents of lands to the temple. They also constructed houses for accommodation of the Gurukkal performing pooja in the said temple. In the olden days, house sites were not given Cadastre numbers, but they were treated as Government lands. The suit house property was came to be occupied by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendant as Archakas to the Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Alayam and the ancestors of the plaintiffs were working in the temple as Archakas and in recognition of their service alone, they were allowed to occupy the suit property. The right to occupy is only heritable and not partible or divisible and the parties to the suit are in occupation of the suit property only in their capacity as Archakas of the said temple. The temple is not paying any remuneration to the Archakas, but in lieu of the same, the plaintiffs were permitted to occupy the suit property. The suit is bad for non impleadment of the Arulmighu Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Devasthanam, Koilpathu. The suit property is not a joint family property capable of being partitioned. The defendant in his personal capacity purchased certain lands belonging to the temple from one Govindaraju on 08.05.1976 and the said property also is included in the suit schedule. Accordin