LILAMANI Vs. BIEN AIME POUCHEPALLIAMBALLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S. No. 60 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub -Judge, Pondicherry in O.S. No. 275 of 1981. Then 1st defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for a declaration that the Birth Certificate No. 222 of 1976, dated 26.2.1976 is null and void, for a declaration that no child by name Dilcoumar Bionaimo was born to the 1st defendant through Saravattourayon Bionaimo and also for declaration that the judgment obtained by the first defendant in O.P. No. 49 of 1978 on the basis of the fictitious birth certificate is null and void.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, the allegations contained in the plaint were denied. It was false to state that one Suresh was substituted as Dilcoumar. It was equally false to state that the 1st defendant was the wife of one Gopalakrishnan or Narayanan. The O.P. was allowed after the enquiry declaring the 1st defendant as guardian. The said Dilcoumar was born to late Sarvothurayon through the 1 st defendant. The registration was carried out by the late Sarvothurayon himself and he himself had admitted the paternity of the child. He was also baptised. The plaintiff has no right to question the paternity of the child when the father himself has registered the birth of the child and admitted before the Competent Authority in writing under the French Law.