This Review Application has been filed by the appellant in AS No.884 of 2012, seeking review of the judgment rendered in the said Appeal on 18.07.2017. The said Appeal arose out of the suit for partition, filed by the respondent in the Appeal, seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. The properties subject matter of the suit belonged to one Thomas Arul Nodier, who died on 15.02.1963, leaving behind his widow Kulanthai Savari Muthammal alias C.S.Nodier, two sons Joseph Nodier, Jeannot Nodier and a daughter Jeanette Nodier. It was claimed that on 05.02.1976, the plaintiff, viz. the respondent herein had relinquished her rights in the property in favour of the other three heirs, viz. her mother and her two brothers. The elder brother Jeannot Nodier had relinquished his 1/3 share in favour of his mother and the other brother Joseph Nodier, the appellant herein, by a Deed of relinquishment dated 12.03.1976. Thus, the mother C.S.Nodier and the brother Joseph Nodier, the applicant herein, became entitled to half share each in the suit property. The respondent herein would claim that her mother C.S.Nodier had executed a Registered Will dated 27.06.1992 in and by which, she bequeathed her half share in favour of the respondent herein and hence, the respondent is entitled to partition and separate possession of the said half share. The suit came to be resisted by the defendant/appellant herein contending that the respondent herein had released her 1/4th share even as early as on 05.02.1976 under Ex.A4, therefore, the respondent herein is not entitled to claim partition. It is his further contention that the Will dated 27.06.1992 is not true and valid.

2. On the above contentions, after framing necessary issues the Trial Court rejected both the defences on the reasoning that partition is sought for by the respondent herein as a legatee of her mother Mrs.C.S.Nodier and not as a heir of her father, wherefore, she would be entitled to the half share. On the other plea regarding truth and genuineness of the Will dated 27.06.1992, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the Will is true and genuine. On the said conclusions the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. Aggrieved, the defendant, viz. the appellant herein, had came forward with the Appeal in AS No.884 of 2012. While disposing of the Appeal, I framed the following points for determination, on the basis of the arguments addressed by the parties.

1. Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get a share on the basis of the Will executed by her mother, after having relinquished her interest in the property by the release deed dated 05.02.1976?

2. Whether the plaintiff has proved the execution and due attestation of the Will Ex.A12 dated 27.06.1992?

4. On both the points framed I had accepted the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved the applicant herein the defendant in suit has come forward with this Review Application, primarily contending that the parties in the suit were not Indian Citizens, but they were actually French Nationals and the children also continued to be the French Nationals. It is claimed that the mother, viz. Kulanthai Savari Muthammal alias C.S.Nodier, had given a declaration on 12.02.1963 at Karaikal to the French Government styled as a “Declaration Adoption Deed Nationalite” and in view of the same, it is the French Law of succession that could be applicable to them. Therefore, it is claimed that under Article 913 of the French Code Civil, the mother viz., Kulanthai Savari Muthammal alias C.S.Nodier could not have disposed of the entirety of the property by way of a Will, ignoring the rights of the son, who has a right to the legitim. Therefore, according to the Review applicant, the judgment dated 10.07.2017 made in the Appeal requires reconsideration by way of review. Though, this ques