JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

[Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., r/w. Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned III-Additional District Judge, Puducherry dated 30.06.2016 in O.S.No.41 of 2013.]

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, Puducherry are on appeal, aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2016, in and by which, the suit for partition was decreed in part, granting a preliminary decree in respect of Western half of the suit property alone. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit in respect of the Eastern portion of the suit property, since it had upheld the settlement deed dated 31.01.2001 executed by late Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou in favour of his daughter / 1st defendant.

2. The plaintiffs, who are the wife, sons and daughter of late Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou sought for a preliminary decree to the effect that they are entitled to 1/7th share each over and above the 1/8th portion and for a declaration that the settlement deed dated 31.01.2001 executed by Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void to the extent of 7/8th share and for other reliefs.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property belonged to one Irrusammal, who had under a deed of donation dated 27.10.1959 settled it on Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou, son of Arunagiri. The plaintiffs would claim that the said Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou died on 18.07.2006, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 to succeed to his estate. The plaintiffs would also contend that the 3rd defendant attempted to disturb their possession on 19.02.2013, claiming that he had entered into a registered agreement of sale with the 1st defendant in respect of a portion of the property. On such a claim being made, the plaintiffs, applied for an encumberance certificate and upon getting the same, found an entry to the effect, the said Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 31.01.2001 and the 1st defendant had entered into a registered agreement of sale, agreeing to sell a portion of the property to the 3rd defendant on 18.02.2013.

4. The plaintiffs would also contend that the settlement deed is unbelievable and it is a handy work of the 1st defendant. It was also claimed that the settlement was not acted upon and the said Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou continued to be in possession of the property. The plaintiffs also sought recourse to the customary Hindu Law in Puducherry and contended that the said Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou could not have disposed of more than 1/8th of the property by way of Will or settlement. The Doctrine of Legitim available under the French Law was sought to be applied to contend that the settlement deed could be valid only in respect of 1/8th share in the property and nothing more.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and it was adopted by the 3rd defendant. It was contended that the said Dhanaraj @ Danaradjou, having obtained the property from his mother, Irrusammal had an absolute right over the property and hence, the settlement deed is valid. It was contended by the 1st defendant that the Doctrine of Legitim, which is a Doctrine borrowed from the French Law though in vogue among Hindus in Puducherry would cease to apply upon introduction of the Hindu Succession Act to Puducherry on 01.10.1963. It was contended that upon the execution of the settlement deed, the 1st defendant became entitled to the property covered by the settlement deed and therefore, if at all the plaintiffs are entitled to a share, it would be only in the remaining portion of the property, which is not covered by the settlement deed. It was also contended that the settlement deed has been duly executed and properly registered, the same would confer absolute title on the 1st defendant to the properties covered by the settlement document. The claim that the settlement deed was not acted upon was also stoutly denied by the de