MASOMAT DROPATF DEVI Vs. PREMLATA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents of both the cases.

(2.) BOTH the Second Appeals have been filed against the same judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate court and the parties are also common in both the Second Appeals. S.A. No. 349/ 2000 has been filed by defendant no. 1, who happens to be mother of deceased Deepak Kumar Yadav, whereas, S.A. No. 336/2000 has been filed by defendants no. 2 to 5, who happen to be the Union of India and the Railway authorities. Hence both the said Second Appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) THE dispute, in reality, is between defendant no. 1, the mother of the deceased and the plaintiff, claiming to be the widow of the deceased Deepak Kumar Yadav, and the main question in issue is as to whether plaintiff -respondent no. 1 was widow of late Deepak Kumar Yadav, the son of defendant no. 1 (appellant in S.A. No. 349/2000). Learned trial court has dismissed the suit on the basis of documents and papers submitted before the Railway authorities, in which the name of plaintiff -respondent no. 1 was not mentioned but the said factor cannot legally decide the issue as admittedly the dispute between the parties continued for years and hence obviously in the official papers, the name of the plaintiff could not be found. Apart from that, Ext. 2 is the certificate of Mukhiya, Ext. 6 is the voter list and Ext. 9 is the case filed by defendant no. 1 -appellant against the rela - tives of the plaintiff with regard to kidnapping, which clearly shows that plaintiffrespondent no. 1 was the wife of deceased Deepak Kumar. Furthermore, Ext. 13 is the first information report, wherein the defendant no. 1 -appellant herself admitted the marriage of her son with the plaintiff mentioning her as the daughter of a person, who was admittedly plaintiff 'sfather.