A bequest under a Will is invalid if the beneficiary is not conceived at the time of the testator's death, as per Article 906 of the French Code Civil.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 30.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the District Court at Karaikal, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred the first appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration of title and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit properties.

4. The defendants 1 & 2 in O.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Karaikal, are the appellants herein and the plaintiff is the 1^st respondent herein.

5. The plaintiff's case is as follows:

The suit properties originally belonged to Rajagopal Naidu. The third defendant Anandhakrishnan is the son of Rajagopal Naidu. The plaintiff is the second son of Aandhakrishnan (3^rd defendant), who was born on 28.02.1990. One A.Prakash is the 1^st son of the 3^rd defendant born on 07.11.1985. Rajagopal Naidu, father of the third defendant and Original owner of the suit properties, executed a Will on 15.07.1951 in the presence of Nothaire Shanmugarajaganapathy. The Will was registered as document No.36, RV 177 on 25.09.1952. The Will relates to the immovable properties of Rajagopal Naidu viz., house, house sites, garden, wetlands, dry lands, etc., he gave a life estate in all the properties in favour of his four sons namely Kanagaraj, Jeganathan, Jankiraman and Ananthakrishnan (3^rd defendant) and they equally shares the properties and enjoy the same without powers of alienation and after the death of the four sons, the testator Rajagopal Naidu had made a gift of those properties to the male descendants of the four sons to be enjoyed by them absolutely with all powers of alienation. Therefore, the plaintiff is an absolute owner of ½ share in the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant purchased the entire suit properties from the third defendant on 08.12.1989 by way of a registered sale deed with the Sub Registrar Office of Karaikal with registered No.1225/1989. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The defendants 4 & 5 with some arrangement with the defendants 1 & 2 enjoying the suit properties. Therefore, they were impleaded as a necessary parties as defendants 4 & 5 in the suit. The sale of plaintiff's ½ share will not bind the plaintiff. Therefore, he filed a suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and directing the defendants 1, 4 & 5 to hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and thus, pleaded to allow the suit.

6. The defendants 1, 4 & 5 contested the suit and filed their written statements. The defendants denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and contended that Rajagopal Naidu domiciled in Karaikal is governed by the provisions of Article 971 to 974 of French Code Civil . He had executed the Will dated 15.07.1951 in the presence of witnesses viz., Notaire, Shanmuga Rajaganapathy. At the time of execution of the Will, all persons domiciled in Karaikal were governed by the French Code Civil since Karaikal was then a French territory under the rule of the French Government. The Will had been registered on 25.09.1952 as per the rules prescribed by the French Government. Till the death of Rajagopal Naidu, Karaikal had not attained independence and therefore, none of the laws in force in the union of India was extended to Karaikal.

6.1. Under the Will aforesaid, Rajagopal Naidu had given life estate over his immovable properties to his four sons, namely, Kanagaraj, Jaganathan, Janakiraman and Anandakrishnan, so that, they could equally enjoy the properties without rights of giving, transferring or selling the same during their respective lifetime. The testator had stated in the Will that after the death of his four sons, the male children born to them would get the said properties with the full rights to give, transfer and sell. The bequeathal under the Will in favour of the unborn children of the sons of the testator is not valid under