JILLEHAMUDINAGAMANI Vs. SARVEPALLI VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed O S No 26 of 1998 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late J Ananda Hanumantha Rao She stated that she was earlier married to one Radha Krishna and begot two children and after his death,she married Hanumantha Rao in the year 1991 in Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple Mulapet Nellore According to her, there did not exist any subsisting marriage between Hanumantha Rao and any other Aoman, when she married him She pleaded that Hanumantha Rao executed a Will dated 15/09/1997, in her favour and died in an accident that took place on 05/10/1997 She also filed O P No 270 of 1998 under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') betore(the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore The first respondent in S A No 694 of 2002 filed an independent claim,being OPNo 119 of 1998 before the same Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of late Hanumantha Rao She filed a written statement in O S No 26 of 1998 stating that she was married to Hanumantha Rao on 22/02/1967 according to the caste, customs and rites and that the said marriage subsisted till the death of Hanumantha Rao on 05/10/1997 She disputed the marriage of the appellant with Hanumantha Rao as well as the alleged Will Through its judgment, dated 24/04/2001, the trial Court dismissed the suit Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A S No 50 of 2001 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore The appeal was also dismissed on 03 06 2002 The second appeal is filed against it. Out of the two claims made for payment of compensation on account of death of late Hanumantha Rao, OP No 119 of 1998 was allowed and a sum of Rs 4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the first respondent herein O P No 270 of 1998 was dismissed The petitioner filed C M A (SR) No 76235 of 2002 against the same The admissibility or otherwise of the claim of the appellant herein under the Act would depend upon the outcome of the suit filed by her seeking declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Hanumantha Rao Therefore it needs to be seen as to whether the judgments rendered by the Courts below in O S No 26 of 1998 and A S No 50 of 2001 are correct and proper To prove her case, the appellant examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and filed Exs A1 to A26 Exs X1 to X4 were also taken on record On behalf of the first respondent, D Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs B1 to B10 were marked.

(2.) It is not as if the appellant herein was un-married by the time she is said to have been married to Hanumantha Rao in the year 1991 By that time, she was married to a person, by name Radha Krishna and had two children According to her, Radha Krishna died She states that Hanumantha Rao was not married by that time The first respondent, on the other hand, categorically pleaded that she was married to Hanumantha Rao in the year 1967 and had a daughter through him In proof of her case, she filed Ex B1, wedding invitation card and Ex B2, lagna patrika Exs B4 to B6 are the certificates in relation to her daughter, issued by the school They revealed that Sarvepalli Srivani is the that the first respondent and her daughter alone are hte member of the family of late Hanumantha Rao Exs B8 to B10 are the certificates issued in relation to the death of late Hanumantha Rao The evidence adduced on behalf the appellant is mostly in the form of correspondence She is unable to prove that the marriage between the first respondent and Hanumantha Rao did not subsist by 1991.

(3.) The alleged marriage of the appellant with Hanumantha Rao, even if true cannot be recognised in law in view of the fact that there was a subsisting marriage between Hanumantha Rao and the first respondent The Courts below have discussed the evidence on record on correct lines and arrived at a proper conclusion This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same Once it has emerged that the appellant is not the legal heir or successor of late Hanumantha Rao, she cannot be paid any compensation on account of the death of late Hanumantha Rao and her claim was rightly rejected by dismissing O P No 270 of 1998 Therefore, the C M A(S R) is also liable to be dismissed