( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1645 of 1997 was filed under S. 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree in AS No. 29 of 1992 dated 2 6/02/1997 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge, Cuddapah, aggrieved by the finding that the first appellant is the wife of late Subba Rachaiah, and the appellants 2 to 4, children born to them are illegitimate children, are not entitled to succeed to the interstate properties of Subba Rachaiah inasmuch as the appellants 2 to 4 are the illegitimate children of late Subba Rachaiah and the second respondent therein is the wife of late Subba Rachaiah and the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are the legitimate children of late Subba Rachaiah and they are entitled to issue succession certificate to succeed to the petition schedule securities and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the order and decree dated 13-4-1992 in O. P. No. 16 of 1991passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rayachoty.

( 2 ) THE appellants have assailed the correctness and legality of the findings of the courts below on the ground that having held that the first appellant is the wife of Subba Rachaiah has erred in holding that the appellants are not entitled to succeed to his intestate property and confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the appellants 2 to 4, being illegitimate children, are not entitled to succeed to the property, that the courts below have erred in holding that appellants 2 to 4 are not the legitimate children of the late Subba Rachaiah; it is further contended that as per Ex. B-1 to B-41, late Subba Rachaiah was the lawful husband of the first appellant and the appellants 2 to 4 are legitimate children of late Subba Rachaiah, that the Court below has failed to notice that in Service Register the first appellant, after her marriage got changed her surname from matchi to gannamanthi after her husband s name and the same was notified in the Gazette dated 24-12-1964, therefore, the courts below should have held that the appellants 2 to 4 are entitled for grant of succession certificate. It is also contended that in many title deeds, the first appellant has been described as the wife of late Subba Rachaiah and in Ration Card, Ex. B-30, issued in the name of late Subba Rachaiah, the name of all the appellants find place in it and the finding of the Courts below that the marriage between the first appellant and late Subba Rachaiah took place subsequent to 1955 is also contrary to facts and law, therefore the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It is further contended that on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower courts should have held that the second respondent is not the legally wedded wife of late Subba Rachaiah, as she failed to prove that her marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs, and for all the above mentioned reasons, it is submitted that the order passed by both the Courts below is contrary to facts and law and evidence on record and therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) THE facts in nutshell are that O. P. No. 16 of 1991 was filed under S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Subordinate Judge, Rayachoty, by the petitioners therein to issue succession certificate in their favour, as legal heirs of late Subba Rachaiah in respect of the petition schedule securities and for costs of the petition.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the O. P. as petitioners and respondents. It is averred in the petition that late Subba Rachaiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who retired as a Teacher died on 18-12-1987 leaving behind him the petitioners as his legal heirs. The second petitioner is the wife of the deceased and their marriage was celebrated on 30-12-1939 at Cuddapah and it was consummated and the first petitioner is the son and petitioners 3 and 4 are d