The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Hindu Renoncant in Pondicherry is governed by the old Coramendel Hindu Law of Pondicherry, and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply to them.

1. One Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai, the native of Pondicherry, had three sons and two daughters. The daughter Anandammal @ Chandrakanni, predeceased the father, leaving behind her children, who were arrayed as defendants 4 to 7 in O.S.No.1462 of 1986 and defendants 7 to 10, in O.S.No.412 of 1987, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry. The three sons are i) Thananjayan @ Murugesan, ii) Palani @ Boologanathan, & iii) Govindan and the other daughter is Anusuya.

2. The son Thananjayan @ Murugesan filed a suit in O.S.No.1462 of 1986, to set aside the donation deed, dated 6.11.1985, executed by his father Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai, in favour of his brother Palani @ Boologanathan, on the ground of fraud, or in the alternative, to declare that the donation deed is valid only to the extent of 1/8 share of Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai and not valid in respect of 7/8 share. In that suit, viz., the suit in O.S.No.1462 of 1986, Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai, his father, was arrayed as the first defendant, his brother Palani @ Boologanathan, as the second defendant, his sister Anusuya as the third defendant and his other brother Govindan as the eighth defendant.

3. The other son, by name, Palani @ Boologanathan, filed O.S.No.412 of 1987, for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the properties, which were given to him under the donation deed, dated 6.11.1985 and therefore, for injunction, or in the alternative, directing the defendants to put him in possession of the suit properties. In O.S.No.412 of 1987 also, the father Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai was the first defendant, Thananjayan @ Murugesan, viz., the plaintiff in O.S.No.1462 of 1986 was the second defendant, and Govindan was the third defendant and their sister, Anusuya was the eleventh defendant and the legal heirs of Anandammal, were arrayed as the defendants 7 to 10.

4. Both the suits were tried together and the Trial Court held that the donation deed, dated 06.11.1985, executed by Chakrapani Gounder, in favour of Palani @ Boologanathan, was valid only to the extent of 1/8 share and it was not valid to the extent of remaining 7/8 share, after holding that the donation deed was executed by Chakrapani Gounder, while he was in a sound state of mind and it was not obtained by the donee-Palani @ Boologanathan, by practicing fraud. Similarly, in O.S.No.412 of 1987 also, the plaintiff viz., Palani @ Boologanathan, was given declaration in respect of 1/8 share of the property. Aggrieved by the same, Palani @ Boologanathan, the plaintiff in O.S.No.412 of 1987 and the second defendant in O.S.No.1462 of 1986, filed A.S.Nos.54 & 55 of 1995, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1462 of 1986 and O.S.No.412 of 1987 and those two Appeals were allowed, holding that after the extension of Hindu Succession Act to Pondicherry in the year 1963, the property belonged to Chakrapani Gounder and it was his absolute property and he was entitled to execute any gift deed or sale deed in respect of those properties and he executed the gift deed, dated 06.11.1985, in favour of Palani @ Boologanathan, and therefore, Palani @ Boologanathan, got absolute right over the property and decreed the suit in O.S.No.412 of 1987, and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1462 of 1986. Aggrieved by the same, Thananjayan and other legal heirs of Chakrapani Gounder, excluding Palani @ Boologanathan, filed the above Second Appeals.

5. The following substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeals:-

"Whether in law the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to the parties or the Coramandel Hindu Law still continue to apply?"

6. Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Lower Appellate Court, without properly appreciating Section 2 (A) of the Hindu Succession Act and the law applicable to Pondicherry, as laid down by this Court in various judgments, erred in holding t