KALIDOSS Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants herein.

(2.) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for a consequential relief of injunction as against the second defendant that she should not interfere with the peaceful marital life of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trail Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.60 of 1998 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

(3.) The plaintiff had contended that she is the relative of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant were in love with each other and theywere living as husband and wife for nearly 6 years prior to January 1993. Since the said fact came to the knowledge of the villagers, they have celebrated the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant on 21/1/1993. Out of the said wedlock, the plaintiff has given birth to a female child on 15/11/1994. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant claiming to be a wife of the first defendant, had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for consequential injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default. According to the plaintiff, prior to the marriage on 21/1/1993, an agreement was entered into on 15/2/1992 between the plaintiff and the first defendant wherein both of them have signed and many villagers have also signed in the said agreement. Only with a view to prevent the celebration of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the second defendant had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994. According to the plaintiff, she is residing in the matrimonial houseof the first defendant along with the child. The plaintiff had further contended that since O.S.No.128 of 1994 has been dismissed for default, the second defendant cannot continue to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant.