The applicability of Customary Hindu Law to Christians in Pondicherry and the court's discretion to mold relief based on pleadings and evidence.

1. The Second Appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1997 in A.S.No.43 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge at Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.1986 made in O.S. No. 404/1985 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Philip Diagou. He bequeathed the property in favour of plaintiffs father Joseph Xavier Aroquiasamy and gave life estate. The absolute right of the property vested upon to plaintiff and his two brothers, equally. The father of the plaintiff, Joseph Xavier Aroquiasamy without any manner of right, alienated the plaintiffs rightful share to the defendant. The plaintiffs father had sold the plaintiffs 1/3 share without permission from the Court of law, as a guardian of the minor plaintiff. So, the sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of plaintiffs share is void ab initio. The plaintiff and other two brothers, Philip Immanuel and Joseph Arul nathan are the executants along with their father. The plaintiff is a native christian and the personal Law that prevails for christians under Contractual Law of land alone is applicable. The plaintiff was aware of the said sale after the death of his father on 26.07.1983 and thereafter, he issued a legal notice to the defendant on 06.08.1984. But, he has not received any reply. So, the suit is not barred by limitation. Hence, he is entitled to 1/3 share in the property. He is constrained to file the suit for setting aside the sale deed dated 25.02.1970 as void ab initio, directing the defendant to hand over possession of 1/3 share to the plaintiff in the alternative, the plaintiff must be compensated to the value of the property. Hence, he prayed for the decree.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: The suit is barred by limitation, because the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years of attaining majority. The plaintiffs father Joseph Xavier Aroquiasamy sold the property only with an intention to maintain the minor and to give proper education. The plaintiffs father was unemployed and he was living only with the income from the property and when the income from the said property was not sufficient to meet both the ends, as guardian of the minor and also to maintain the minor namely the plaintiff, during the time of sale, he had executed a sale deed in favour of this defendant and hence, the sale deed is valid. He is in continuous possession for over ten years and he has prescribed title to the property. The plaintiff has become major in the year 1973 itself. He ought to have filed the suit in 1976 itself. So, the suit is barred by limitation and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering the averments made both in the plaint and in the written statement, framed five issues and considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A4, decreed the suit by, setting aside the sale deed to the extent of plaintiffs 1/3 share in the suit property and the defendant is directed to hand over possession of the said 1/3 share in the property to the plaintiff and the extent of the said 1/3 share shall be determined by the issue of a commission during execution of the decree. Against that, the defendant preferred appeal in A.S. No. 43 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.

5. The Appellate Judge had framed three points for determination and after considering the arguments of both the counsels, he dismissed the appeal. Against that, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration:

"1. Whether even if the respondents father had no title or authority to sell the suit property in view of the