The legal sanctity of Notarial Sale Deeds under the French Law and the applicability of the French Law of limitation were central to the court's decision.

1. The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are before this Court by way of the present Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2008 passed in A.S. No. 164 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District Court, Pondicherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1997 passed in O.S. No. 244 of 1994 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Pondicherry.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a Notarial Sale Deed, dated 23.09.1966, executed in his favour by one Parasuraman and Narayanasamy, who are sons of one Artchouna Counder. On 01.10.1966, the plaintiff orally leased out the suit property to one D. Ramachandran, who is the husband of the 1st defendant/Saroja and father of defendants 2 to 6, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- for residential purpose, by raising a hut therein. As the plaintiff was employed in France, he authorized his father Alavandar to receive the rents on his behalf from the tenant Ramachandran and accordingly, Ramachandran was paying the rent regularly till August 1977. After the death of the said Alavandar in September 1977, the tenant Ramachandran stopped paying the rent, despite the plaintiff's instructions to pay the rent from September 1977 to one Thillai Govindan. As Ramachandran committed wilful default in payment of rent, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the said Ramachandran on 29.01.1979, calling upon him to pay the entire arrears of rent and also to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Though Ramachandran received the said notice, he neither replied to the same nor vacated and delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

3. Thereafter, on coming to know that Ramachandran died about two or three years prior to the filing of the suit and assuming that defendants 5 and 6 alone are the legal heirs of Ramachandran, the plaintiff caused a legal notice to defendants 5 and 6 on 02.12.1992, calling upon them to recognize him as their landlord and to pay the arrears of rent and future rents to him. Upon receipt of the said notice, defendants 5 and 6 gave a reply notice dated 28.12.1992, denying not only the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Ramachandran, but claimed prescriptive title over the suit property by denying the plaintiff's title. In the reply notice, they have also stated that defendants 1 to 4 are also the legal heirs of Ramachandran and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, since his death. Therefore, on 11.04.1993, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to all the defendants calling upon them to recognize him as their landlord, attorn the tenancy in respect of the suit property and also pay the arrears of rent and future rents to him regularly every month. Since there was no reply from the defendants, the plaintiff caused another legal notice to them on 24.05.1993, for which also, there was no reply from them. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 244 of 1994 before the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

4. Denying the averments of the plaint, the defendants, in their Written Statement before the Trial Court, have stated that the suit property was a vacant manai and the 1st defendant/Saroja's husband Ramachandran occupied the suit property in the year 1960 by constructing a thatched hut therein and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interference either by the plaintiff or his vendors and he has been paying property tax in his name. Ramachandran died on 06.02.1983 and since then, defendants 2 to 6 have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any hindrance and on 16.10.1992,