JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2016, passed in O.S.No.127 of 2012 and counter claim, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. This appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgement and decree dated 21.03.2016, passed in O.S.No.132 of 2012 and counter claim, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.)

Common Judgement

R. Subramanina, J.

1. These two Appeals are at the instance of the alienees of certain properties from one Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, widow of Joseph Amalarayan Rayar. Two suits were laid by the first respondent in both the Appeals seeking a declaration that seven Sale Deeds executed by Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 as void and for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the said properties.

2. According to the plaintiff in both the suits, the suit properties subject matter of both the suits were purchased in the year 1965 and 2005 by her mother late Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, during the subsistence of a marriage with Joseph Amalarayan Rayar, father of the plaintiff. Claiming that both Joseph Amalarayan Rayar and Marie Louise Rayar, were French Nationals and hence the French Code Civil would apply to them, the plaintiff pleaded that the properties acquired by Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar belonged to the community and Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar did not have an absolute right of disposition over the said properties. Citing the French Code Civil, it was contended by the plaintiff that if Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, had exercised her option of retaining a 1/4th share, she would be entitled to 1/4th share and in the absence of such exercise of option, she would only be entitled to the usufructs. On her death, the property devolved on her two sons and a daughter viz. the plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 in both the suits. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the alienations made by Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, in favour of the defendants 1 to 5 in both the suits are invalid and will not bind the plaintiff or the other legal heirs of the deceased Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar.

3. The suits were resisted by the purchasers contending that neither Joseph Amalarayan Rayar nor Mrs.Marie Louise Rayar, who were married on 18.01.1961 at Pondicherry, were French Nationals. Citing the Treaty of Franco Indian Cession between the Republic of India and France, it was contended that unless it is shown that a person domiciled in Pondicherry at the time of enforcemnt of Treaty of Franco Indian Cession had exercised his option to retain the French Nationality, within a period of six months, from the notified date he/she would automatically become an Indian National in view of Article V of the Treaty of Franco Indian Cession. It was contended that since neither the husband nor the wife were shown to have exercised their option, they would not be French Nationals and after the extension of the Indian Succession Act to Puducherry, during the year 1981 the same would apply.

4. It was also contended that there was no question of forming a communite legale between them and they would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, which was extended to Puducherry on and from 01.04.1982. It was also pleaded that assumption of French Nationality is not a matter of presumption and the same will have to be proved like any other fact. It was also pleaded that the suits were barred by limitation.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues in OS No.127 of 2012:

1.Whether the French Law is applicable in the instant suit;

2.Whether the suit property is a community property;

3.Whether the sale deed of plot No.86 dt. 17.10.2011 registered on 17th October 2011 in favour of Sangeetha wife of Namachivayam, the fourth defendant the sale o