Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Karaikal, substantially affirming the order passed by the Authorised Officer determining the ceiling area of the Appellants family. The appellants family held on the appointed day 1792.17 standard hectares. Hence, a notice in Form 4 was issued to him requesting him to file a return. In response to the above notice, the appellant filed a return. Following the filing of the return, the Authorised Officer enquired into the matter after notice to the appellant. 2. In that enquiry the appellant represented that as he is a French citizen he is governed by the French personal law, that the personal law of the French citizens are saved by the Treaty of Cession of the French Establishments, 1956, between the Indian Government and the French Government, and that as the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act are repugnant to the personal law of French citizens, and therefore, these provisions should not be applied in the case of the Appellant. It was also contended by him before the Authorised Officer that as his wife inherited properties from her parents, her separate properties cannot be clubbed with his holding for the purpose of fixing of the ceiling area and that the properties exclusively belonging to her minor sons and unmarried daughters should not also be in the computation of his ceiling area. 3. The Authorised Officer had, however, rejected all the said objections and proceeded on the basis that the Pondicherry Land Ceiling Act will apply to the appellant as the Act is applicable to the entire Union Territory of Pondicherry. He then, determined the ceiling area of the appellants family after clubbing with his holding the extent of the land held by his wife as stridhana and the lands held separately by the minor sons and unmarried daughters. In his view the appellant, his wife, their minor sons and unmarried daughters constitute a family as defined in S. 2(10) of the Act, and therefore, form one unit. Hence he determined the ceiling area of the appellants family consisting of himself, wife, two minor sons and three unmarried daughters at 8,40.00 standard hectares and declared the balance of their holdings as surplus. 4. Hence he determined the ceiling area of the appellants family consisting of himself, wife, two minor sons and three unmarried daughters at 8,40.00 standard hectares and declared the balance of their holdings as surplus. 4. The order of the Authorised Officer was challenged before the land Tribunals by the appellant contending that the provisions of the Act will not apply to the appellant as he is a French citizen, and that in any event the determination of the ceiling area by the Authorised Officer is not consistent with the provisions of the Act. The Land Tribunal, however, took the view that even if the personal law of the French citizens can be taken to be saved by the provisions of the Treaty of Cession still the application of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act cannot be excluded in respect of these persons. According to the Tribunal, the personal law which is the Code Civil, merely recognises the rights of the children to hold their individual and separate properties, and the right of one spouse to claim half share in the properties acquired in the name of other spouses durins the subsistence of the marriage, but that the Recognition of such individual and separate ownership of properties by the husband, wife and children, is not, however, affected by the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, which merely enable the clubbing of the separate properties of all those who constitute a family for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area and that therefore, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Ceiling Act will not be applicable to the appellant. On the question as to whether the ceiling area has been properly determined as per the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal went into the details of the individual holding of the appellant, fail wife and the minor sons and the unmarried daughters, and ultimately determined the ceiling area after excluding the lands held by two children, one of whom has become a major after the appointed day, and the other daughter has since been married after the appointed day. The Tribunal was of the view that according to the provisions of S. 2 (10) the individual holding of the appellant, his wife and his minor sons and unmarried daughters should be taken as one unit for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act. 5. In this appeal, the same contentions which advanced before the Tribunal are reiterated. According to the learned counsel, the personal law applicable to the French citizens like the appellant, cannot be taken to be affected by the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, that under the personal law, the holding of the appellant, whether standing in his name or in the name of his wife is part and parcel of the commanaute legale which has to be divided between him and his wife in equal shares, and all the minor children are also entitled to hold properties independently, and that therefore, the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act which directs the clubbing of the lands held by a person and his wife and minor children and unmarried daughters for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area is contrary to the said personal law. I am not able to see how the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act is in any way repugnant to the said personal law of the appellant even if he is treated as a French citizen. The personal law which is said to have offended the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act is said to be Article 1407 of the Code Civil. Art. 1407 merely sets down the principle that any property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage between two spouses, should be divided between the spouses in equal shares. This provision merely declares the two spouses as having equal shares in the properly held either in the name of the husband or in the name of the wife. The application of Article 1407 of Code Civil which is said to be the special law for French Citizens will result in the appellant and his wife having separate and individual half share in the property of the appellant. The recognition of individual ownership of the husband and wife in the properties of any of the spouses acquired during marriage will merely lead to the situation that the wife and the husband are having separate properties. The recognition of individual ownership of the husband and wife in the properties of any of the spouses acquired during marriage will merely lead to the situation that the wife and the husband are having separate properties. This is the normal and usual case of a husband and wife owning separate properties. S. 2(10) of the Act says that the husband, his wife their minor sons, and unmarried daughters will constitute a family and S. 4(1)(a) provides for the ceiling area of the family as defined in S. 2(10). For fixation of the ceiling area under S. 4(1), whether the property is owned by the husband or wife, or minor sons or unmarried daughters separately in their own right is immaterial as even their personal and separate properties have to be clubbed under that Section. Therefore, merely because under the personal law, the wife and the minor sons and unmarried daughters are entitled to hold properties separately and individually, they cannot claim immunity from the application of the Act. Their individual ownership is not affected. As a result of the application of that Act, if the lands held by the wife or minor sons or unmarried children are treated as surplus they will be paid compensation and not the appellant. It is only for determination of the ceiling area, the holding by the members of the family as defined in S. 2(10) of the Act is treated as a unit. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of the Act can be taken to offend the personal law of the appellant. 6. As regards determination of the ceiling area, no arguments have been advanced. As already stated, the Tribunal has excluded the properties held by one daughter who got married and one son who attained majority after the appointed date but before the notified date, therefore, that portion of the order of the Tribunal modifying the order of the Authorised Officer is in favour of the appellant. 7. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No leave.