Madras High Court
Rajamani vs Vijaya on 9 December, 2021
S.A.No.986 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.986 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1. Rajamani
2. Kumar ... Appellants
...Versus...
1. Vijaya
2. Vijayakumar
3. Minor Rajkumar
4. Samanthi
5. Rakkammal
6. Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar
Harur
7. Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar
Pappireddipatti.
8. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Harur.
9. District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.24 of 2013 dated 10.04.2014
on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Harur, reversing and thereby setting
aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.152 of 2011 dated
06.07.2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur.
1/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
For Appellant :: Mr.S.Kanniah
For R1 to R5 :: Mr.J.Hariharan
For Mr.V.Nicholas
JUDGMENT
The defeated defendants are the appellants herein.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
(a)The respondents R1 to R5 filed O.S.No.152 of 2011 seeking to
declare that they are the legal heirs of one deceased Rajendran showing
the appellants herein namely Rajamani and Kumar as a contesting
defendants. D3 to D6 are the Revenue officials and the deceased worked
as Village Administrative Officer.
(b)The plaintiffs also sought the relief of declaration that all the
plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Rajandran and
permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2 not to issue any death
benefits as against the official respondents.
(c) In support of their case, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 to A13. The
private defendants D1 and D2 (appellants herein) claimed that D2 is also
the wife of said V.A.O and begotten the second appellant Kumar and
hence they are all to be declared as legally wedded wife and legal heirs of
deceased Rajendran and they filed Exs.B1 to B5 in support of the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
(d) The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, has come to the conclusion that D2 is also the legal heir and
accordingly chosen to dismiss the suit and hence the plaintiff filed
A.S.No.24/2013.
(e) Pending the first appeal, they filed Exs.A14 to A16 service
records of the said Rajendran to show that the first plaintiff is the legally
wedded wife and other plaintiffs are the son born through her.
3. Taking into consideration the documents are filed only at
appellate stage and also taking into consideration that the name of the
deceased Rajendran is not found in the ration card of the defendants, the
lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and hence the Second Appeal is
filed by the defendants 1&2.
4. The above Second Appeal was admitted on 17.10.2014 on the
following Substantial questions of Law:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in
holding that the first respondent is legally wedded wife of
the deceased Rajendran, when there is no documentary
evidence for the proof of marriage?
2. Whether the first appellate Court has committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
an error in admitting the documents filed under exhibits
Exs.A14 to A16 at the appellate stage, without any oral
evidence adduced in support of the same?
3. Whether the first appellate Court has committed
an error in ignoring the provisions contained in Section 16 of
the Hindu Marriage Act while granting the reliefs to the
respective parties?
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
Judgment of this Court in AIR (2002) 3 M.L.J 501 [Chinnammal
Vs.Ramasamy Naicker] and CDJ 1996 MHC 685 [Muniver Vs.Munusamy
Mudaliar and Others]
6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent 3 to 6
contended that as per Ex.A14 to A16 as per the instructions received
from the official defendants/respondents, in the service register/service
books are in the name of the plaintiffs alone and the plaintiffs are shown
as the nominee in the service records and hence, the Government will
abide by the decree granted by the civil court. The transfer certificate and
the community certificate of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 reveal that the name of
the father has been accepted as Rajendran and the plaintiffs' side also
filed the family card Ex.A1. The family card shows the name of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
plaintiffs 1&2.
7 (a) The main contention of the contesting appellants is that, in
view of the misunderstanding between the defendants and the deceased
Rajendran, respondents 1 and 2 were living outside the matrimonial
home As per Ex.A8, the said Rajendran died on 09.01.2011. As per
Ex.A11 family ration card issued to the plaintiff, Rajendran has lived with
the respondent/plaintiff and said card was issued in the year 2005. As
per Exs.A14, 15, 16 service records maintained by the contesting official
respondents, the service register entry was made in the year 1991 and he
died in the year 2011 and for twenty long years, in the service records,
the name of the wife is shown as the plaintiff and the said Rajendran
himself lived for long years and even after 2005 ration card issued in
favour of the plaintiffs, he had only died in the year 2011.
(b) On the contrary, the appellants/defendants have not
produced any document to show in this regard. According to the oral
evidence of D.W.1, who is the 1st defendant, in her cross examination,
she has stated that @vd; fzth; bgah; vd;d vd;why; uhn$e;jpud;/ ve;j
uhn$e;jpud; vd;why; vd; fzth;/ vdf;F v';F jpUkzk; MdJ vd;why;
uhn$e;jpud; tPlo; y; MdJ/ vg;bghGJ MdJ vd;why; vdf;F bjhpahJ/ ehDk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
uhn$e;jpuDk; jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;L xd;whf ,Ue;jjw;F VjhtJ Mtz';fs;
cs;sjh vd;why; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ c';fSf;F nurd; fhh;L ahh; bgah; vd; bgaUk;
uhn$e;jpud; bgaUk; cs;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ thf;fhsh; milahs ml;ilahtJ
vd;Dila bgah; cs;sjh vd;why; ,Uf;fpwJ/ eP'f; Sk; uhn$e;jpuDk; FoapUe;jjw;F
VjhtJ mj;jhl;rp xg;gilf;fpwPh;fsh vd;why; xg;gilf;fpnwd;/ rhl;rpfis
Tl;of;bfhz;Ltnwd;/ hpf;fhh;L xg;gilf;ftpy;iy/@
8. So, D.W.1 has clearly admitted that she has not produced any
authenticated document which proves that she has been legally married
with the deceased Rajendran. Exs.B1 to B5 filed on the side of the
defendants did not reveal about the legitimacy of the marriage between
the 1st defendant and the deceased Rajendran. As per Exs.A1 to Ex.A16,
the 1st plaintiff has married the deceased Rajendran and plaintiffs 2 to 5
children were born out of their wed-lock. A perusal of Exs.A14 to 16, it
reveals that the name of the 1st,d 2nd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs have been
found in the service register, whose names were nominated as nominees
to the deceased Rajendran. The plaintiffs have not produced the
documents Exs.A14 to A-16 for appreciation before the trial Court.
During the stage of appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed these
exhibits which reveals about the legal heirs of the deceased Rajendran.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
9. Hence, in the absence of any positive evidence to prove
legitimacy of marriage of Rajendran/now deceased with D1 and in the
absence of any positive evidence to show paternity of D2 with deceased
Rajendran and in view of the presence of the documents Exs.A11, A14,
A15 and A16, the lower Appellate Court had rightly come to the
conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs 1 & 2 have proved that they
are legally wedded wife and legal heirs of the deceased Rajendran and
such a finding rendered by the lower Appellate Court does not warrant
any interference.
10. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the
judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P is closed.
09.12.2021
nvi
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
1.The Subordinate Judge, Harur
2.The District Munsif, Harur.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
Judgment in
S.A.No.986 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.986 of 2014
09.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
