Y NAGANANDINI Vs. T N PUSHPALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the finding of the trial Judge, namely, the 7th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9562 of 2010 regarding the preliminary issue, "whether the 7th defendant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Govindan". The said finding was rendered by order dated 31.07.2015. The plaintiffs in the above said suit are the petitioners in the revision petition.

(2.) The learned trial Judge held the 7th defendant be the legally wedded wife of deceased Govindan, based on the presumption contemplated under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Though the plaintiffs who are the revision petitioners contended before the Court below that the 7th defendant was only a servant maid, based on certain documentary evidence, namely, the family card containing the name of the 7th defendant as a member of the family of deceased Govindan, the Birth Certificate of the deceased daughter of the 7th defendant showing Govindan to be her father and complaint lodged by Govindan regarding the mysterious death of the daughter of the 7th defendant describing her to be his daughter, the Court below held that the same would be enough to show that the deceased Govindan and the 7th defendant lived under the same roof as husband and wife, as a result of which, a daughter was born and that the same would give rise to a presumption that the 7th defendant is the legally wedded wife of Govindan, even though there was no direct proof of marriage between them.

(3.) The learned trial Judge also held, that the plea projected by the plaintiffs that one Danalakshmi was the wife of Govindan and she died on 15.06.1990 does not stand substantiated by the production of the Death Certificate, which was obtained after the filing of the suit. It was also pointed out that the certificate would show that the registration itself was obtained after the filing of the suit and that same was not enough to arrive at a conclusion that the said Danalakshmi was alive, when the 7th defendant joined Govindan as his wife and started living under the same roof as husband and wife. The defendants 1, 2 and 6 supported the case of the plaintiff whereas, the defendants 3 and 5 supported the case of the 7th defendant and the 4th defendant remained ex parte.