CHELLAIYA THEVAR ALIAS CHELLAPANDIAN Vs. MURUGESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions made by M/s.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel for the appellants and M/s.S.Ramesh @Ramiah, learned counsel for the first and second respondents were heard. THE judgments and decrees of the courts below and connected appeal papers produced in the form of typed-set of papers were perused.

(2.) THE following are the admitted relationship of the parties. Seenithai, the mother of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 was the first wife of the first appellant/first defendant (Chellaiya THEvar @ Chellapandian). THE respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the daughters born to them. After the death of Seenithai, the first appellant married the third respondent/4th defendant and through her marriage, he got appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 as daughter and son.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, except the interested testimonies of the first appellant/first defendant and the third respondent/4th defendant, who is none other than the mother of appellants 2 and 3, no other reliable evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants to prove their contention that the marriage of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs took place prior to 1989. Of course, the position of the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs is on the same footing since no documentary evidence was adduced on their side to prove that their marriage took place on particular dates. However, the defendants being none other than the father,half sister half brother and step- mother of the plaintiffs are in a better position to produce documents to show the date of marriage of the plaintiffs. Such persons who are place in a better position have not produced such documents. Instead of producing such documents which shall clinch the issue, the defendants were choosy in their selection of evidence by producing a birth certificate of the daughter of the first respondent herein/first plaintiff as Ex.B5 to show that the said child was born on 07.01.1990. The said document was produced perhaps to show that at least 10 months prior to the date of birth of the said child the marriage of the first respondent/first plaintiff ought to have taken place. If such a calculation is made, it will take as to 07.03.1989 and an attempt was made to show that the marriage ought to have taken place prior to 07.03.1989 whereas the amendment introducing Section 29-A came to force w.e.f.25.03.1989. But the said attempt cannot be said to be successful because, there is no wonder in a child being born to a person within 10 months from the date of marriage.