D NAGAMANI Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.91 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, dated 26.04.2002, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.362 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, dated 30.09.1999.

(2.) THE following are the allegations in the plaint succinctly stated:2.1. THE first plaintiff and her husband Natarajan @ Damodharan loved each other from the year 1972. Even before solemnization of marriage, they lived as husband and wife. Hence, she became pregnant and delivered a male child on 10.06.1973, who is the second appellant. Subsequently, on 02.02.1975, in her parents house at Pethanaickanur, they got married. Both of them were living together in several places in and around Pollachi, till the said Damodharan was unfortunately murdered on 11.03.1992. Prior to his death, he registered the marriage with the Sub-Registrar Office, Anamalai, on 10.02.1989. He deposited totally Rs.75,000/- with the third defendant in the fixed deposit. He worked as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in Government School, Kalathur Village, at the time of his death. THE death cum gratuity and family benefit funds payable on the death of Damodharan are available with the first and second defendants. He executed a deed of undertaking on 17.03.1988, by means of which, he bequeathed his whole estate in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to his estate as legal heirs.2.(ii) THE plaintiffs applied for the payment to the defendants, but the second defendant by his letter dated 27.03.1992, refused to pay the amount by stating that one Santhamani, the fourth defendant herein, has also made a claim for the amount alleging that she is also wife of Damodharan. THE second defendant has asked the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant to prove their heirship through Court of law. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Damodharan.

(3.) AT the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial question of law have been framed by this Court:-Whether the Court below is right in coming to the conclusion that the fourth respondent is legally wedded wife as against the documentary evidence Ex.A.1, which is a public record which was not challenged by the fourth respondent.-