MARIYAMMA ALIAS SHEKAMMA Vs. ERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard appellant's learned advocate. Respondents are represented, but I have not called upon them.

(2.) Appellant's learned advocate has seriously assailed the finding of the trial Court whereby the respondent has been held to be the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Mastanappa. It is the case of the present appellant that, she has produced adequate material before the trial Court for the purpose of establishing that deceased Mastanappa and she who were residing together for a long period of time and that he has treated her as his wife. She has also produced a photograph of the two of them which according to her is the wedding photograph. In sum and substance what is vehemently contended by the appellant's learned advocate is that, the trial court ignored the evidence produced by the present appellant in support of her contention that there was a long period of cohabitation between them and that along with other supporting material, this was sufficient to establish her status as the lawful wedded wife of deceased Mastanappa. I need to observe here that, the decision in this proceeding is of some consequence because the original plaintiff claimed that, she was the lawfully wedded wife and that the five children born to her were born out of wedlock between her and deceased Mastanappa. On this basis she and her children claimed to be the heirs in respect of all dues that accrue to the deceased Mastanappa. Defendant No. 2 who is the present appellant had contended that, she was the real wife and consequently, the authorities had not made any payments to either of the two women. It was pursuant to this situation that the suit came to be filed before the trial Court for a declaration of status as far as the plaintiff and her children are concerned.

(3.) The learned trial Judge, after considering the oral evidence has placed considerable reliance on some documentary evidence which he considered conclusive. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are the sons of the deceased Mastanappa have produced their school records to show the father's name as H. Mastanappa. This particular factum has been seriously disputed by the present appellant and it is contended by her learned Advocate that, the initial of the deceased was 'G' and the reference to the initial 'H' in the certificates would indicate that 'G' pertains to some other person. The learned trial Judge has, after hearing, the parties accepted the explanation that since Mastanappa belonged to the Harijan community, that in all probability the prefix of the letter 'H' represented his community and not his name. This explanation is not of much consequence because, to my mind, we have on record the oral evidence of the various witnesses which does in turn establish that they are the wife and sons of the deceased Mastanappa. The school records are only supportive and therefore, as long as the name basically tallies, the circumstances under which the initial 'H' appears therein, is not of much consequence. There is also another aspect with reference which to my mind, virtually clinches the entire case. The plaintiff had contended that, she is the lawfully wedded wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are her sons. That the deceased Mastanappa did acknowledge them as such is clearly evident from the fact that in the relevant Government records, he has designated the two of them as his beneficiaries to receive the terminal dues in the event of his death. This is a very strong piece of evidence and the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on it for the purpose of deciding the case.