SOURASAMY IMACULE JOSEPHINE Vs. MARIA JOSEPH ROCK REPRESENTED BY POWER-OF ATTORNEY JOSEPHINE MARIAKANNU SOURASAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the reversing judgment of the Second Additional District Judge of Pondicherry in A.S. No. 29 of 1975 on the file of this Court.

(2.) THE suit instituted by the plaintiff is of a somewhat unusual character. The plaintiff, who is a spinster, and the third defendant are sisters. The second defendant is the husband of the third defendant and the first defendant is the son of defendants 2 and 3. The parties are citizens of Pondicherry and are Christians by religion. Hindus as well as Christians who are natives of Pondicherry were, as per the laws governing Pondicherry before its merger with the Union of India, governed by customary Hindu Law in the matter of adoptions, with the difference that in the case of Hindus, religious ceremonies had to be gone through but in the case of Christians, such ceremonies were not necessary. By an arrête, dated 29th December, 1855, the Pondicherry Government had prescribed that adoptions should be properly evidenced by deeds and therefore, deeds of adoption should be reduced to writing in a notarial deed and duly homologated by the judge de paix or Justice of Peace. A fortiori, the same procedure had to be followed by Christians also when they effected adoptions, since in their case, the adoptions were not preceded by religious ceremonies.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants and various defences were raised by them. It is unnecessary to refer to all those defences because only one question arises for consideration in the appeal, viz., whether the plaintiff's suit had been filed within time and is not affected by limitation. It may however be generally mentioned that the defendants refuted the charge of the plaintiff that the first defendant had proved himself to be unworthy of being the adopted son of the plaintiff.