R. Subbiah, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2014 passed in O.S. No. 48 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein with costs and thereby directing the appellants/defendants herein to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of judgment.

2. The appellants are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 48 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. For easy reference, the parties shall be referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' in this appeal.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 48 of 2007 before the Court below praying for the following reliefs:

1. Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute and rightful owner of the suit property well described in the schedule hereunder.

2. To direct the defendants No.1 and 2, their power agents, assignees or men to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff herein

3. To direct the defendants No.1 and 2 to pay the plaintiff a mesne profit of Rs.75,000/- for the illegal and wrongful occupation of the suit property from December 2005, upto June 2007 and continue to pay mesne profits @ Rs.4,000/- per month till the defendants 1 and 2 deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff herein

4. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and 2, their agents, assignees or men from leasing, selling, alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner to defeat the rights of the plaintiff

5. Cost of the suit

4. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is a French National by birth, hence, the second defendant, after her marriage with the first defendant, was also conferred with French Citizenship and has become a French National. In other words, the defendants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife. The children of the defendants have settled at France. The house where the plaintiff was residing is situate just opposite to the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are the owners of the plaint described property where they are running a school under the name and style of St. Joseph High School at J.J. Nagar, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Since the defendants 1 and 2 intended to settle at France along with their children, they disposed of the land and building where the School was run as also the management of the school to a third party in the year 2006 for a valuable sale consideration. Similarly, the defendants intended to sell the plaint described property and offered to sell it to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is residing opposite to their house. It is represented by the defendants that the suit property was purchased by the first defendant on 16.09.1992 by means of a registered sale deed and from that date, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. After deliberations and mutual consent, an agreement of sale dated 28.04.2005 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants whereby the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.18 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as advance. As per the clauses contained in the agreement of sale dated 28.04.2005, the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.16 lakhs within one month from the date of agreement and to get the sale deed executed in her favour.

5. It is contended by the plaintiff that as per the prevailing French Law–Communete Legal System, the second defendant, being the wife of the first defendant, is entitled to half a share in the suit property. It is also stated that both the defendants are governed by the French Law, therefore, by way of an abundant caution, the plaintiff requested the second defendant to be a party to the sale transaction, to which, the second defendant also agreed. When the plaintiff intended to purchase stamp papers, she was in