LILAMANI Vs. BIEN AIME POUCHEPALLIAMBALLE

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 a 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 this context, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the plaintiff has only pleaded that the minor child is a fictitious person and therefore the question of impleading such a fictitious person does not arise. I have considered this objection with reference to the provisions of O.1, Rule 9 of C.P.C. The appellate court, while dealing with this objection has observed that the objection has been taken for the first time in the grounds of appeal. It is also further stated that under the French Law, the Municipality need not be made a party to a suit of the present nature in the sense, Dilcoumar was always claimed by the plaintiff to be a fictitious person and there was no need to implead the said person in the suit as a party.