C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the C. M. As. arise out of the same Judgment and since the parties to both the C. M. As. are one and the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to incorporate her name as the wife of the 1st defendant in its records in place of g. Koteswaramma, whose name is recorded as his wife in their records.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is that the marriage between her and the 1st defendant took place on 17-10-1966, and that out of the three children they begot, out of their wedlock, one daughter only is alive, and from a few years prior to the suit 1st defendant, by neglecting her, allegedly that he married one Koteswaramma as his second wife nominated her as his wife in the records of the 2nd defendant, the employer of the 1st defendant. The case of the 1st defendant is that he, who was married to Manoharam, a relative of plaintiff, only developed intimacy with but did not marry the plaintiff, and later divorced manoharam, and married Koteswaramma and begot four children through her, and as plaintiff is not his wife she is not entitled to any relief. The case of the 2nd defendant, who is the employer of the 1st defendant, is that since 1st defendant initially declared the plaintiff as his wife, and later gave a declaration that koteswaramma is his wife, disciplinary action was initiated against him.

( 5 ) BASING on the pleadings, two issues were settled for trial by the trial court. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW. 1 and two other witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A21. In support of his case, 1st defendant examined himself as DW. 1 and five other witnesses as D. Ws. 2 to 6 and marked Exs. B1 to B15. In support of the case of the 2nd defendant, one witness was examined as DW. 7 and Exs. B16 and B17 were marked. The trial Court having held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought, directed the 1st defendant to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 or the amount accrued to the g. P. F. account of the 1st defendant by the date of Judgment, whichever is high to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed c. M. A. No. 1544 of 1998, and aggrieved by the decree directing him to pay rs. 10,000/- or the amount standing to the credit of his G. P. F. account by the date of Judgment, the 1st defendant filed C. M. A. No. 1026 of 1997.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration in these appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant?

( 7 ) 1st defendant admitted his living with the plaintiff for some years, and gave a declaration that she is his wife to his employer-2nd defendant, as seen from ex. B12. Ex. A1 shows the plaintiff as the wife of 1st defendant. In view thereof and since the contention of the 1st defendant is that even prior to his having an affair with the plaintiff, he married Manoharam and so he could not have validly married the plaintiff, it has to be seen if the evidence adduced by the 1st defendant establishes the marriage between the 1st defendant and Manoharam.

( 8 ) THERE is no documentary evidence on record to show that Manoharam is the wife of 1st defendant, but Ex. A20 shows that Manoharam got issued that notice to the plaintiff and 1st defendant demanding an explanation from the 1st defendant as to why and how he claimed her as his wife, when no marriage ever took place between them. But Ex. A20 cannot be taken into consideration because it is dated 1-8-1996 i. e. , subsequent to the suit, and the person who issued the said notice is not examined.

( 9 ) WITH regard to oral evidence, except the interested evidence of the 1st defendant as DW. 1 and the evidence of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document