The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement deed was found to be valid and not hit by the Doctrine of Reserve, and the law applicable was only the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.02.2000 and made in A.S.No. 16 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.12.1998 and made in O.S.No. 1142 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 1142 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court at Pondicherry, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No. 1142 of 1996 had been filed by the plaintiff Amirthavalli against her elder sister Mangalakshmi and elder brother Murugesan, seeking a declaration that a settlement deed executed by their mother Ammayee Ammal on 24.05.1990 in favour of the first defendant, Mangalakshmi is valid only to the extent of 1/8th share and is liable to be reduced to 1/8th share leaving the rest of 7/8th share of the suit property liable for partition between the plaintiff and the first defendant and for a decree of partition of the 7/8th share and also for injunction and for costs.

3. By Judgment dated 24.12.1998, the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff Amirthavalli had filed A.S.No. 16 of 1999 before the Principal District Court at Pondicherry. By Judgment dated 02.02.2000, the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, dismissed the Appeal Suit. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal.

4. Pending the Second Appeal, both the respondents/defendants/ Mangalakshmi and Murugesan died and their legal representatives were brought on record as 3rd to 10th respondents. Subsequently, the 11th respondent Govindan was also brought on record by order dated 14.06.2002 in C.M.P.No. 16807 of 2021. He claimed to be a purchaser of a portion of the suit schedule property pending the Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the impugned donation dated 24.05.1990 in favour of the first respondent is hit by the doctrine Reserve and valid only to the extent of 1/8th?;

2. When the impugned donation deed is not valid to the extent of 7/8th as the parties are governed by the customary Hindu Law, is the learned Principal District Judge right in dismissing the suit for partition as if the law applicable is only the Hindu Succession Act?”

O.S.No. 1142 of 1996 [ I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry]:

6. The plaintiff claimed that the properties mentioned in the schedule belonged to her mother Ammayee Ammal, wife of Gopal Gounder. The first defendant was the elder sister of the plaintiff and the second defendant was the elder brother of the plaintiff. It was stated that the first defendant had control of Ammayee Ammal and obtained a settlement deed with respect to the suit schedule property. The settlement deed was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Villianur. The plaintiff claimed that the document is hit by the doctrine of Reserve as, under the Customary Hindu Law in Pondicherry, the daughters are the heirs of the mother and a mother can execute a settlement deed only with respect to 1/8th undivided share of her property and the balance 7/8th share has to be partitioned among the daughters.

7. It was also stated that the first defendant refused to partition the property and claimed that her rights had been settled in Court in a suit with the second defendant. Holding out that the document is effective only for 1/8th share and claiming partition of the balance 7/8th share, the suit had been filed.

8. In the written statement, the first defendant denied the averments that the settlement deed had been procured by her from her mother. She further denied that her mother could have settled only 1/8th share and the balance 7/8th share should be partitioned. She further stated that the second defendant in collusion with the plaintiff had filed O.S.No. 587 of 1991 which was dismissed and the consequent Appeal in A.S.No. 12