AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—Among the above two appeal suits, A.S.No.549 of 1983 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24/11/1980
rendered in O.S.No.6 of 1978 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry thereby in a suit filed by the respondents herein against
the appellants for the reliefs of delivery of vacant possession and for direction to the defendants to receive the balance of the sale consideration, the
Court below would decree the suit as prayed for, as a result of which the defendants therein aggrieved, have come forward to prefer the above
appeal suit on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal.
So far as the other appeal in Transferred A.S.No.442 of 1989 is concerned, it is directed against the judgment dated 25/8/1967 passed by the
erstwhile Court of FIRST INSTANCE OF PONDICHERRY in F.R.No.130 of 1967 whereunder the appellant a minor on 20/6/1967, the date
of deliberation of the family council, having attained the majority being aggrieved by the judgment cited therein dated 25/8/1967 files this appeal to
set aside the same on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal.
C.M.P.No.11052 of 2001 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. by the appellants in A.S.No.549 of 1983 above praying thereby to
receive the documents set out in the schedule to the petition as additional evidence in the appeal.
Regarding the coming into being of the above appeals, according to the appellant in A.S.No. 549 of 1983 is that from the above two appeals,
A.S.No.442 of 1989 is the main appeal, the decision of which will have a bearing on A.S.No.549 of 1989; that the respondents in A.S.No.549 of
1989 are the original plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 1978 and the legal representatives of some of the original plaintiffs in the said suit; that the plaintiffs
therein have filed the suit in respect of two different portions of a house as suit properties; that both the properties put together would make a single
property; that according to the plaintiff, he purchased from M.S.Brothers under two different sale deeds from the defendant; that the first sale deed
under Ex.A.1. dated 18/11/1967 and the second sale deed on the same day under Ex.A.2; that ten years later to the purchase of Exs.A.1 and
A.2, the plaintiff issues notice to the defendant/appellant calling upon to deliver possession and thereafter, he filed the suit for delivery of vacant
possession of the suit properties covered under both Exs.A.1 and A.2; that in the year 1968 on 10/5/1968 under Ex.B.1. the defendant sent a
notice to the plaintiffs'' counsel and belatedly , he filed the suit; that the counsel for the defendant who gave the notice in 1968 has been examined
as a witness.
That so far as Tr.A.S.No.442 of 1989 above is concerned, it is against the judgment dated 25/8/1967 passed by the erstwhile Court of FIRST
INSTANCE PONDICHERRY. The allegations herein are that under the French Law if property of minors is to be alienated, permission of the
Court should be obtained; that though permission is granted, it has not been done properly in accordance with law and hence this appeal.
Tracing the history of the case connected to both these appeals what comes to be known is that the property originally belonged to one
Subramania Naicker and the appellant in A.S.No.442 of 1989 is his son; that under a Notarial Donation deed dated 27/11/1950, he gave the
usufructs of the properties described in favour of his mother-in-law Chinnammal and bear ownership of absolute right in favour of the children born
to him and his wife Pattammal; that the appellant was born on 15/6/1954 and the gift was on 27/11/1950; that at the time of gift, Chinnammal was
present and accepted the gift but so far as the children of Subramania Naicker and Pattammal are concerned, they were to get absolute rights over
the properties; that the children are the party appellants in A.S.No. 549 of 1983 that Pattammal mother of minor was present but she did not
accept the gift deed on the part of the minor; that Pattammal filed application in original application F.R.No.134 of 1990; that the reason given in
the petition for sale of the property is the bad shape of the property and for minor petitioner''s education.
The further case of the appellants is that one Dhanakoti had adverse interest to the minors that is from out of the two properties one was held by
the minor and the other by Dhanakoti Naicker; that he was interested in selling the minors properties that the guardian mother had also some
interest in the property; that as per Pondicherry Hindu Code the property belongs to father; that according to Pondicherry Civil Law, the donation
should have been accepted; that according to the Pondicherry Hindu Law as it is applied in Pondicherry, father cannot donate more than 1/8th
share of the property.
So far as A.S.No.549 of 1983 is concerned, the respondent herein has filed the suit before the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Pondicherry on averments such as that the plaintiff purchased the suit on 18/11/1967 by two Notarial sale deeds each for the valuable
consideration of Rs.7,000/- each one by first and second defendants and the other by defendants No.1,3,4 and 5; that since the plaintiff was not
put in possession, from out of the total sum of Rs.15,000/- he withheld Rs.8,000/- and for this amount, he has issued a receipt in favour of the
defendants promissing to pay the balance of sale consideration recited in the sale deed as soon as he is put in possession of the house purchased
by him; that in the mean time one Muniammal @ Uthirammal filed a suit against these defendants questioning their right and title of the suit property
that is O.S.No. 4 of 1968 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry and this plaintiff was impleaded as a party to the
said suit which came to be dismissed for default and the said order became final since no attempt was made to restore the same; that thereafter the
plaintiff purchased the properties and asked the defendants to put him in possession of the suit property as agreed and since the defendants did not
comply with his demand causing a lawyer''s notice dated 17/5/1977 to the defendants has come forward to file the suit in which the defendants 7
to 12 are the legal representatives of the defendant No 1; that the defendants are bound to deliver vacant possession of the suit house purchased
by the plaintiff since the plaintiff is prepared to pay the balance sale consideration of his being put in possession of the house. On such allegations,
the plaintiff filed the suit.
In the written statement filed by the defendants, they would allege that it is true that the defendants sold the suit house to the plaintiff who
executed a depot receipt for the balance sum of Rs.8,000/-; that after execution, the defendants asked the plaintiff to take possession on payment
of the balance sale consideration but the plaintiff evaded; that a ''Sommaation'' having been issued by the defendants demanding the money further
cautioning that in default the sale would be cancelled even for which the plaintiff kept silence for seven years and has now come forward to seek
for possession; that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands; that due to principle of equity and natural Justice the defendants are
entitled for possession based on the sale deed, which was cancelled; that the suit is barred by limitation; that the prayer to deduct the cost of
O.S.No.4 of 1968 in the sale balance is against law; that if at all, there is any, the plaintiff should recover it from the person who filed O.S.No. 4 of
1968. On such allegations, the defendants would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.
The trial Court, based on these pleadings by parties would frame five issues namely:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the suit house?
Whether the plaintiff has failed to take delivery of the house after paying the balance of sale consideration as per ''Depot'' Receipt?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the cost of O.S.No. 4 of 1968 amounting to Rs.500/- from the depot amount?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
What relief if any is the plaintiff entitled to?
For determination of the whole suit, the Court below having framed these issues would conduct the trial in which on the part of the plaintiff one
witness would be examined as P.W.1 who is none other than the plaintiff himself, besides marking six documents as Exs.A.1 to A.6, Exs.A.1 and
A.2 being the sale deed dated 18/11/1977, Ex.A.3 being the decree copy in O.S.F.No. 4 of 1968, Ex.A.4 being the judgment in O.S.F.No.4 of
1968 dated 25/2/1971, Ex.A.5 being the Advocate notice dated 17/5/1977 and Ex.A.6 being the acknowledgment cards (six in numbers).
On the part of the defendants, they would examine three witnesses as D.Ws. 1 to 3 besides marking the sole document as Ex.B.1. which is a
''Sommaation'' dated 10/5/1968.
The trial Court in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by parties in the light of these evidence placed on record
and having dealt with the case in terms of the issues would ultimately decree the suit as prayed for with costs, testifying the validity of which the
defendants have now come forward to prefer the above appeal suit in A.S.No.549 of 1983 on certain grounds as pleaded in the grounds of
appeal.
So far as the other appeal in A.S.No.442 of 1989 is concerned, originally this appeal was preferred before the Court of Principal District
Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.154 of 1985 and got transferred to this Court so as to be dealt along with the other appeal in A.S.No. 549 of 1983
for being jointly heard and decided since being the connected matters regarding the facts of this case, one Subramania Naiker who is the father of
the appellant in this appeal under Notarial donation deed dated 27/11/1950 gave the usufructs of the suit properties in favour of his mother-in-law
Sinnammal and the absolute rights in favour of the children born and to be born to him and his wife Pattammalle; that the appellant was born on
16/6/1954, after the donation; that at the time of the donation, the done was present in the Office of the Notary Public, accepted the donation
made to her with full acknowledgement of her gratitude; that in respect of the donation made to the children, there is no presentation nor any
acceptance on behalf of the children.
The further case of the appellant is that then Pattammal the mother of the appellant filed a petition on 13.6.1969 before the JUDGE de PAIX,
Pondicherry, requesting him to assemble the family council of the minor child Arumugham, the appellant in order to get permission to the guardian
to sell the properties described below on a consideration not below Rs.4,000/- and to employ the share of the minor for the education and
subsistance of the minor, after payment of the debts; that family council assembled before the JUDGE de PAIX on 20/6/1967 and appointed
Pattammal as the guardian of the appellant and Tanacodynaiker as [Assistant guardian (Surboge tuteur)] and authorised the guardian to sell the
property in order to pay the debts and to utilise the balance for the subsistence and education of the minor; that the said guardian Pattammal filed
before the ERSTWHILE COURT OF I INSTANCE, PONDICHERRY a petition dated 1/8/1967 for the approval of the deliberation, which
petition was approved under judgment dated 25/8/1967.; that with the said judgment of Homologation, the guardian Pattammal, Rajakantham,
Shenbagavally and Tanacodynaiker sold the property in favour of Ramachandiran @ Tirunavukarasu as per the sale deed dated 18/11/1967 for a
consideration of Rs.7,000/- and the purchaser issued a receipt on the same day undertaking to pay Rs.4,500/- as balance under sale consideration
of Rs.2,500/- was paid to the vendors, Pattammallee, Rajakantham, Shenbagavally and Thanacodynaiker. It is only against the decision of the
judgment of THE FIRST INSTANCE dated 18/11/1967, the appellant has come forward to prefer the above appeal suit on certain grounds as
pleaded in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the lower Court ought to have dismissed the petition for Homologation of deliberation because
the sisters of the appellants have no right to the property and the property belonging to a male devolves only to his male heirs as provided in
Customary Hindu Law and ultimately praying to set aside the judgment of the ERSTWHILE COURT OF I NSTANCE, PONDICHERRY dated
25/8/1957 thereby granting permission to sell the properties and to declare as null and void of the deeds of alienation sale or mortgage, which may
be executed by virtue of the above judgment and that the appellant is not bound by the other debts; that as regards A.S.No.549 of 1983 it is the
suit filed by the first respondent for directing to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property on receipt of the balance consideration and the
Court below has decreed the suit; that according to the first respondent, the first and second defendants executed the document in favour of the
respondent herein; that there are two distinct properties; that both the sale deeds recite but as if the entire sale consideration has been received by
the sellers as per the pleadings; that from out of the total sale consideration of Rs.14,000/-, the plaintiff has withheld Rs.8,000/- but he comes
forward to say that he is ready and willing to pay the said amount; that under Pondicherry Law, this is not permissible; that the very Introduction of
the French Law would contemplate that the sale deeds should be recorded in writing; that the sale deed also recites that the entire amount has
been paid but the admission made on the part of the plaintiffs; that the sale was cancelled in 1968 and possession was also taken; that two distinct
sales have been clubbed together as a single suit; that under Order 2 Rule 3 C.P.C., it cannot be done. At this juncture, the learned counsel would
cite four judgments respectively reported in
Chandulal Suklal Shet Vs. Dagdu Mahadu Chaudhari,
Paresh Chandra Sen Gupta Vs. Jogendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and Another,
This is followed in:-
Harendra Nath Singha Ray Vs. Purna Chandra Goswami and Others,
ILR 43 MAD 567
In the first judgment cited above, it is held that
where a joint suit was brought against the same defendant by five different persons, each of whom had contracted to supply a certain number of
maunds of cotton to the defendant, to recover from him the price thereof, Held: the suit is not maintainable and must be wholly dismissed"".
In the second judgment cited above, it is held that
It is not competent for the Court to pass a joint decree against two defendants with respect to each of whom there is a different cause of action
In the third judgment cited above, it is held that
the plaint should be treated as comprising two suits, one at the instance of the plaintiff as shebait of the deity Nandadulal Thakur in respect of
property A and the other at the instance of the plaintiff in his personal capacity in respect of the properties B, C, D and E and the two suits should
be separately tried (English and Indian cases, Ref).
So far as the fourth judgment is concerned, three suits came up before the High Court on Second Appeal. So, that the Court had no
jurisdiction to interfere with any finding of fact by the District Court in which the High Court is held as follows:-
Each of the suits is for the recovery of possession of agricultural land in a ryotwari tract, and has been instituted by the plaintiff as the Government
pattadar.
The number of the defendants in the several suits is 165, 103 and 30. They are not, however, in joint possession; on the contrary, they have
separate holdings and should have been separately sued.
With such arguments, the learned counsel would ultimately pray to allow both the appeals as prayed for setting aside the judgments and
decrees passed by the lower Courts therein.
In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the above appeals would submit that on 27/11/1950 both Dhanakodi and
Subramania Naiker partitioned the family properties belonging to them each taking half share, the Eastern side of the property by Dhanakodi and
the Western portion by Subramania Naiker; that the same day Subramania Naiker executed the donation deed to his unborn children, giving life
Estate to his mother-in-law Chinnammal; that on 13/6/1967 one Pattammal filed a suit in O.S.No. 6 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Principal
Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry and the wife of Subramania Naiker; that the mother of appellants herein filed a petition to appoint as the guardian
of minor son Arumugham, the appellant; that on 20/6/1967, she was appointed as a guardian of the said minor who is the appellant herein; that on
1/8/1967, she filed a petition to sell the suit property for the welfare and benefit of the minor; that on 25/8/1967 it was ordered on condition that
the property should be sold for a minimum of Rs.45,000/- but not less than the said amount; that challenging this, the appellant filed A.S.No.14 of
1985 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry 18 years later and it got transferred and renumbered as A.S.442 of
1989.
Learned counsel would further argue that on 18/11/1967, the plaintiff entered into an agreement for the purpose of the Eastern half portion of
the suit property from Dhanakodi Naiker and the Western half remained with Pattammal representing the appellant and her two daughters; that
Muniammal filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1968 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry; that the then minor son filed the
suit questioning the rights of Pattammal and her daughters in alienating the property; that one Ramachandran and Tirunavukarasu were impleaded;
that on 25/2/1971, the suit filed by Muniammal in O.S.No. 4 of 1968 was dismissed for non-prosecution; that thereafter, the defendants did not
hand over possession and hence on 17/5/1977, the plaintiff causing a lawyer''s notice demanding possession with no reply and hence he
constrained to file O.S.No.6 of 1978 for recovery of possession; that on 18/11/1967, the sale deed was executed where under both the
properties have been purchased for a total sale price of Rs.14,000/retaining a sum of Rs.8,000/- which should be paid to the defendants after
handing over possession of the properties; that the defendants so far as the western portion is concerned have taken a specific stand to the effect
that the sale deed was cancelled by notice. But the same has not been proved. This has been confirmed by the trial Court also in its judgment that
there is no specific pleading in the written statement also to the said effect; that the contents of notice in Ex.B.1 dated 10/5/1968 would show that
there is nothing regarding the cancellation of the sale deed, so far as this notice is concerned. Learned counsel would attack it on three grounds.
The first one is that the alleged B.1. notice is not served on the defendant. Secondly that even otherwise, the said notice does not contain anything
regarding the cancelation of sale deed and thirdly, the defence taken in written statement is incomplete and bereft of the factual details. Therefore,
the learned counsel would conclude saying that Ex.B.1 cannot be relied on for any useful purpose.
Dealing with the transferred A.S.No.442 of 1989, the learned counsel for the respondents would argue that this appeal is purely preferred as a
result of after thought; that as and when they lost the suit in O.S.No.6 of 1978 five years later, they have filed the transferred appeal and this had
been filed 18 years after the disposal of the suit; that it is the Court which had permitted the mother to sell the property for not less than a sum of
Rs.4,000/- etc., as conditions of sale by her as the guardian of the minor. But the property was sold for Rs.7,000/- and the appellant was not in
any manner affected; that the interests are secured and there is no cause of action for them to file an appeal at all. To the contentions of the other
side that there should have been two suits filed separately the learned counsel would point out that each of the properties comprises the composite
house; that no specific partition having taken place it would only render a single suit. Moreover, this point was not at all pleaded before the trial
Court. With such arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents would pray to dismiss the appeals with costs.
In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by parties in the trial Courts below and in the grounds of appeal before
this Court, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel for both as extracted
here before in both the above appeals, the appellants have come forward to testify the validity of the judgments and decrees respectively passed in
O.S.No. 6 of 1978 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dated 24/11/1980 and the judgment dated 25/8/1967 passed by the
ERSTWHILE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, PONDICHERRY in Affaire No.134 of 1967. The suit property is a house which was originally
belonging to one Dhanakodi Naiker and Subramania Naiker said to be the brothers and in a partition that took place among them the eastern
portion of the house was allotted to Dhanakodi Naiker and the western portion of Subramania Naiker. It is the case of the respondents in
A.S.No.549 of 1983 who is the sole respondent therein and is said to have purchased both the properties for a valid consideration of Rs.14,000/-
that is at Rs.7,000/- each. Thus the whole house property inspite of being purchased by him from the defendants in the suit, the physical possession
was not surrendered to the purchaser plaintiff; that hence holding a sum of Rs.8,000/- he had paid the other amounts on the sale deed further
issuing receipt for the said sum withheld on condition that the moment the possession is surrendered that money will be released in favour of the
sellers therein whereas the sellers are both Dhanakodi and Pattammal the wife of the deceased Subramania Naiker and others Pattammal
representing for and on behalf of her minor son, the appellant in the transferred A.S.No.442 of 1989.
The suit in O.S.No.6 of 1978 against the judgment and decree of which the defendants therein have come forward to file the appeal in
A.S.No.549 of 1983 had been filed by the purchaser Ramachandran @ Tirunavukarasu and the said suit is decreed as prayed for directing the
defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on receipt of the balance consideration of Rs.8,000/- in order to
arrive at the said conclusion, the trial Court has not only traced the history of the case as pleaded by parties but also has framed five issues based
on the pleadings and further allowing the parties to record the evidence freely wherein oral and documentary evidences have been let in and in
consideration of those evidence placed on record and appreciating the same issue by issue, the trial Court has ultimately arrived at the conclusion
based on facts borne by the evidence to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff the purchaser of both the properties testifying the validity of which
the defendants have come forward to prefer A.S.No.549 of 1983.
Likewise, the minor son of Subramania Naiker and Pattammal testifying the validity of the judgment dated 25/8/1967 passed by the
ERSTWHILE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, PONDICHERRY in Affaire No.134 of 1967 has filed the transferred A.S.No.449 of 1989
challenging the sale of western portion of the properties that felt to the share of Subramania Naiker. So far as this case is concerned, the son of
guardian Pattammal would not only challenge the lower Court in deciding on a petition filed by Pattammal dated 13/6/1967 praying to assemble
the family council of the minor child Arumugam the appellant herein in order to get the permission of the guardian to sell the properties described
therein on a consideration and the same was conceded and the Court fixed the amount of the minimum sale consideration as Rs.4,000/-and gave
approval of the deliberation dated 1/8/1967 and the Court approved the same in judgment dated 25/8/1967. With the help of this judgment, the
mother of the appellant guardian Pattammal, Rajarathiram, Shenbagam and Dhanakodi Naiker sold the entire property in favour of Ramachandran
@ Tirunavukarasu for Rs.14,000/- and a sale consideration valuing each portion for a sum of Rs.7,000/- and that such arrangements made.
Even to grant permission for sale, the lower Court therein based on those materials placed on record and adopting the procedures established
by law has properly done the same and therefore on the part of the second respondent Ramachandran @ Tirunavukarasu, the purchaser it would
be strongly contended that the present appellant in the transferred appeal cannot have such facilities to challenge after 18 years of the judgment that
a delay of five years after losing the other suit, as a result of after thought in a motivated manner and with ill-motivated designs in connection with
the sellers including his mother have come forward to prefer how both these above appeals on grounds which have not at all been either pleaded
before the lower Court or brought forth in evidence and therefore, the lower Courts based on those materials pleaded and projected framing
proper issues and allowing both the parties to exhaust their remedies for arriving at proper conclusions to decree the suit filed by the purchaser and
grant permission to sell the property in favour of Pattammal. In the other matter which is the subject matter of the transferred appeal would strongly
allege that the second trial cannot be ordered on those items of facts and circumstances which have been prevalent even at the time of the trial and
the pendency of the petition for permission to sell the property and therefore, it is neither relevant nor necessary to consider those unnecessary
details offered anew and would pray to dismiss both the above appeals.
So far as the suit in O.S.No.6of 1978 and the application in Affaire No.134 of 1967 respectively by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge,
Pondicherry and the FIRST INSTANCE COURT OF PONDICHERRY. Based on those facts and circumstances pleaded, framing proper
issues and following the procedures established by law with adequate opportunities being afforded to parties have ultimately arrived at the
conclusions to grant the relief in the suit in the said application and therefore, the only point that surfaces for determination is whether the lower
Courts in both the matters are right in having granted the decree as prayed for in O.S.No.6 of 1978 and the permission granted in Affaire No.134
of 1967 and whether interference of this appellate Court is necessary?
Even on the part of the appellants, there is absolutely no hue or cry that any factual error has been committed so far as they are concerned with
the pleadings by parties nor is it their case that the lower Courts have not properly considered the legal points which were put forth on their part.
Contrarily on appeal, the appellants have come forward to plead some legalities with the help of the judgments cited therein which are focussed at
the only point that for both the properties one suit could not be filed in A.S.No.6 of 1978. The defence is that they are not different properties
though belonging to different parties but under one and the same sale deed they have been purchased valuing each at Rs.7,000/- and the property
is also a single house building property and therefore all the parties have become the defendants to the suit since under one and the same sale deed,
the entire property has been purchased especially in view of the fact that there had been no physical division effected regarding the allotment made
as the Eastern side and the Western side of the house building and hence it is proper to have filed a single suit without splitting the same into two
suits. In such circumstances since the judgments cited above on the part of the appellant in that appeal in A.S.No. 549 of 1983 have got wider
connotation they do not become applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
A careful perusal of the judgment passed by the lower Court would reveal that the Court below has not only traced the entire facts and
circumstances as pleaded by parties but also based on such pleadings would frame proper issues for consideration of the same and for
determination of all the questions raised in the suit. The lower Court would then order for a trial to be conducted thus allowing parties to record
evidence both oral and documentary and having thus collecting the evidence and on proper application of the same to the facts and circumstances
of the case and appreciating the same in the line of expectation of law would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to decree the suit as prayed for, as
per its judgment and decree dated 24/11/1980 rendered in O.S.No. 6 of 1978.
It is not only the decision arrived at by the trial Court in due consideration of the facts and circumstances pleaded by parties but also, the
manner in which the said conclusion has been arrived at by the trial Court following the procedures established by law are beyond question and this
Court is not able to see any legal infirmity or inconsistency or patent error or perversity in approach creeping into the judgment and decree of the
lower Court passed in the above suit and therefore, the interference of this appellate forum sought to be made into the well considered and merited
judgment and decree of the trial Court is neither necessary nor called for.
C.M.P.No.11052 of 2001
So far as this petition filed by the appellants in A.S.No.549 of 1983 praying to receive
(a). the depot receipt issued by the plaintiff,
(b). the certificate issued by the Head Master, V.M.G.P.School, Pondicherry and
(c). the extract from the service register of the fifth appellant, as additional evidence in the above appeal suit is concerned, no proper reasons have
been assigned on the part of the appellants to consider the above application much less to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., especially
in view of the fact that the very provision of law is negative in approach and therefore, the above C.M.P. does not merit acceptance and the same
is dismissed as such.
In result,
(i). both the above appeals fails and they are dismissed.
(ii). The judgment and decree dated 24/11/1980 made in O.S.No. 6 of 1978 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry and the
judgment dated 25/8/1967 made in Affaire No. 134 of 1967 by the Court of First Instance, Pondicherry are hereby confirmed.
(iii). However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.