ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order and decree dated 05.06.2021 made in I.A.No.292 of 2020 in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants" as has been arrayed in the suit.

3. The Revision Petitioners are the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

They have filed the suit in O.S. No. 79 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry for the following reliefs:-

“a) Declaration that the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the only forced heirs of the first Defendant;

b) Declaration that the gratuitous dispositions made by the first Defendant are not binding on them and the first Defendant has no absolute right of transferring the properties in favour of others and such transfers if at all could be valid, can be valid only to the extent of 1/8th share as far as gratuitous dispositions are concerned;

c) Declaration that the first Plaintiff is entitled to ½ equal share of interest in the properties described in the “B” & “C” schedule of the Plaint;

d) Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to

5 their men and agents or any one claiming under them not to encumber the suit properties in any manner either by was of alienation, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever without the consent of the Plaintiffs;

e) Direct the Defendants to pay the cost of the Suit;

f) and to pass such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem it and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

4. As per the plaint averments, the first Defendant is the husband of the first Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born out of the wedlock between the first Plaintiff and first Defendant. The 6th and 7th Defendants are daughters born out of the wedlock between the first Plaintiff and first Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, A Schedule Property described in the plaint belongs to the mother-in-law of the first Defendant. The B and C Schedule Properties were purchased out of the income derived out of A Schedule property by the first Defendant. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are natives of Pondicherry and are governed by the Coromandal Customary Hindu Law applicable to Hindus in Pondicherry. As per the Coromandal Law, the Plaintiffs 2 and 3, being the sons are the only lawful heirs. In other words, they are the forced heirs of the first Defendant and the first Plaintiff, having the right of legitim. However, the Defendants 3 to 5 claims to be the children born out of the illicit relationship between the first and second Defendant. The Defendants 3 to 5 were never recognised or acknowledged by the first Defendant at any point of time. As per Coromandal Coast of Pondicherry and applicable laws, a Hindu father or Hindu mother who has an apparent heir cannot make any alienation of his or her properties unless there is absolute legal necessity for the same. If alienated without any legal necessity, it amounts to wasteful alienation and it is also prohibited under the Customary Hindu Law and the apparent heir can question the same. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the apparent heirs are entitled to a share by equal moiety in metes and bounds. As per the customary Coromandal Law, the son has the right to protect his interest in the properties from being alienated. The first Defendant, as father, has no right of alienation without the consent of the Plaintiffs and first Defendant is barred from even making gratutious dispositions to the deprivation of the Plaintiffs. The first Defendant, irrespective of the nature of properties in his possession, cannot transfer more than 1/8 of the total estate. He cannot also donate more than 1/8 of his share. The A Schedule property is not the self-acquired property of the first Defendant, but he is holding it for and on behalf of his forced heirs, being the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs. As the Defendants 2 to 5 made a rival claim, the filing