VASANTHA AMMAL Vs. NARASIMHA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues that arise in the above three C. R. Ps. are common and they arise out of three I. As. filed in three different suits pending on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 325 of 1998 is filed against an order in i. A. No. 297 of 1987 in O. S. No. 299 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tiruvannamalai. The above suit is a suit for arrears of mesne profits filed by one Duraisamy Naidu.

(3.) LEARNED District Munsif rejected the evidence of the first petitioner on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has not deposed regarding the essential ceremonies performed at the time of her marriage with duraisamy Naidu. He also rejected the evidence of P. W. 2 though she has given the evidence regarding the ceremonies conducted at the time of marriage and the performance of the marriage as well and also the number of persons who attended the marriage. He also refused to give any credence to birth certificates of the three daughters on the basis of the decision in Chellammal v. Angamuthu , 1997 lw (Crl.) 217. He rejected the evidence of marriage agreement on the ground that if the marriage agreement is taken into consideration that would show that the marriage between Duraisamy Naidu and the first petitioner would have been performed in the Tamil month Margazhi, which is not regarded as an auspicious month for the performance of marriage among Hindus. He also held that though in the settlement Ex. P-2, Duraisamy Naidu described the first petitioner as his wife, it could not be accepted as it must be prior to marriage agreement dated 19. 12. 1981 executed by Duraisamy Naidu, the age of the first child was shown as 3 years, and if that is taken into account, the marriage could have been taken place in month of December, 1978, much prior to the marriage agreement. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the first petitioner Vasantha Ammal should have been already married to one Pananthurai Kuppusami, and in the absence of any proof and evidence of the dissolution of marriage of the first petitioner with Pananthurai Kuppusami, the marriage between the first petitioner and Duraisamy was not valid. He accepted the evidence of the respondent and held that the respondent is the son of Duraisamy Naidu. The learned trial Judge placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of kumaraya Chettiar and another v. Cheyyalakshmi and others , 1972 TLNJ 464 and the decision in Sujuit Kaur v. Garja Singh & others , 1994 (1) L. W. 38, held that mere living as husband and wife does not confer the status of husband and wife. Hence, he held that there is no evidence to show that the first petitioner was married to Duraisamy Naidu in the manner contemplated by law, and the other petitioners 2 to 4 also cannot be regarded as legal representatives of the deceased Duraisamy Naidu and the respondent Sankaran is the legal representative. In this view, he dismissed the three petitions filed by the petitioners and it is against the three orders, the present CRPs. have been filed.