BHASKARAN Vs. PUTHALTHINGARA SHYLAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Second Appeals arise from the judgment and decree in A.S. Nos.109 and 123 of 2009 of the Third Additional District Court, Kozhikode confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No.206 of 2006 and O.S. No.454 of 1996, respectively of the First Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode.

(2.) THE 1st respondent in R.S.A. No.1026 of 2012 who is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.206 of 2006 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Gangadharan who died on 06.05.1995 at the age of 47. Claiming to be his legal heir, the 1st respondent sought cancellation of partition deed No.3371/1995 executed by the appellants and others concerning the property of the said Gangadharan and for a decree for prohibitory injunction in O.S. No.454 of 1996. THE appellants who are the defendants in O.S. No.454 of 1996 filed O.S. No.206 of 2006 for a declaration that the 1st respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the late Gangadharan and for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the 1st respondent obtaining legal heirship certificate from the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the alleged marriage between the 1st respondent and the late Gangadharan. According to the learned counsel, the alleged solemnization of the marriage at the ALP School itself is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. IT is contended that Gangadharan was the Manager of a School about 2 kms. away from the temple where the marriage was allegedly scheduled to be solemnized. According to the learned counsel, if that be so it is unlikely that Gangadharan was unaware that the temple where the marriage was allegedly scheduled to be solemnized was remaining closed at the relevant time. IT is further argued that if the temple was closed for some reason, Gangadharan would have taken steps to get the marriage solemnized in his own School rather than going to the ALP School. The learned counsel argues that in Ext.A22, invitation card for the housewarming ceremony of the late Gangadharan there is no reference to his wife though the marriage is alleged to have taken place on 28.08.1994. D.W.7 who is said to have solemnized the marriage is not even proved to be the Poojari of the temple concerned. The further argument is that Ext.B6 comes from doubtful circumstance. IT is pointed out that there is no possibility of Gangadharan contracting a marriage as claimed by the 1st respondent on 29.08.1994 since evidence revealed that he was undergoing treatment for various illness during that time. Learned counsel submits that the attempt of the 1st respondent and others is to grab the property of the late Gangadharan.