( 1 ) THE suit O. S. No. 81/96 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Nandaloor was filed by one Nallagondla Kanthamma against general Manager, Integral Coach Factory, madras, Chief Personal Officer, Integral coach Factory, Madras for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Nallagondla penchalaiah who died on 19-6-1996 while working in Integral Coach Factory, Madras and entitled to receive the benefits i. e. , provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, Leave salary and other privileges incidental thereto and also for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The 3rd defendant one Nallagondla Rajyam was impleaded as party by virtue of an order dated 29-6-1998 in I. A. No. 500/96.

( 2 ) ON the respective pleadings of the parties after settlement of Issues, P. W. 1 and d. W. 1 to D. W. 6 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-7 and Exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked. The learned Junior Civil Judge, nandaloor, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, had declared that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late nallagondla Penchalaiah, entitled to receive the benefits due to the deceased penchalaiah and the suit was decreed without costs by the Judgment and decree dated 2-4-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd defendant filed A. S. No. 24/99 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 7, the children of the said Penchalaiah through Rajyam, the 3rd defendant, were added as parties in l. A. No. 11/2001 dated 25-1-2001. The appellate Court vide Judgment and decree dated 2-2-2001 had modified the Judgment and decree of the trial Court declaring that the plaintiff/1 st respondent and the 3rd defendant/appellant, the two widows of penchalaiah, along with respondents 4 to 7 as Class I heirs, are equally entitle to receive the benefits due to the deceased penchalaiah from the office of Integral coach Factory, Perambur, Madras. It was also specifically stated that the widows are entitled to receive in equal shares. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed s. A. No. 313/2001 and the 3rd defendant and her children filed S. A. No. 1165/2001. Hence, both these Appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the plaintiff is referred to as the "first wife" and the 3rd defendant is referred to as the "second wife" and respondents 4 to 7, the children of the deceased Penchalaiah through the second wife added as parties at the appellate stage are referred to as "children".

( 5 ) THE only question which was raised and elaborately argued by the respective parties is, whether the second wife is entitled to receive any of the benefits due to the deceased husband.

( 6 ) SRI Eswaraiah Chowdhry, the learned counsel representing the first wife with all vehemence had contended that inasmuch as the first wife is living, by virtue of section 5 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, r/w. Section 11 of the Act, the second marriage is void and hence the finding of the appellate court that the second wife also is entitled to receive the benefits due to the deceased husband cannot be sustained at all. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had submitted that in view of the admissions made in Ex. A-4, the counter in m. C. No. 1/85 and also the evidence of d. W. 6, it is clear that as a fact it was proved that the plaintiff alone is the first wife of the deceased Penchalaiah. The learned counsel also commented that though an attempt is made to show that the plaintiff again had remarried by examining D. W. 5 unless she is a divorced wife, the said marriage cannot be said to be a marriage at all in the eye of law and hence in view of the oral and documentary evidence the finding recorded by the appellate court in this regard cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) SRI R. S. Murthy, the learned Standing counsel representing defendants 1 and 2 had contended th