L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The 1st defendant in O.S.No.84 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the decree, dated 08-03-2001, passed therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they are the only legal heirs and successors of late J.P.Girish Chandra and that they are entitled to receive the service benefits from the 2nd defendant. The appellant was shown as the 1st defendant.

It was pleaded that the 1st plaintiff was residing in her sister’s house at Adaiah Nagar, Secunderabad, from 1973 onwards, and when she was attending a Type-writing institute in the near by locality, she got acquaintance with J.P.Girishchandra. Both of them are said to have married on 31-05-1975 at Sri Venkateshwara Temple, Chikkadapally. It was further pleaded that Girishchandra executed an agreement on 31-05-1975 stating that he did not marry any other woman and that he would look after her well. The 2nd plaintiff is said to have born out of their wedlock.

It was stated in the plaint that when they were residing at Adaiah Nagar, Ghasmandi, Secunderabad, Girishchandra developed intimacy with the 1st defendant, who was residing in the opposite house. It was also stated that when Girishchandra brought the 1st defendant to their house and she started living there, the plaintiffs left that house and started living at another place. Girishchandra is said to have died in the year 1998 and alleging that their claim for extension of death-cum-retirement benefits was opposed, they filed the suit.

The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. She stated that her marriage with Girishchandra was performed in the year 1977 at Yadagirigutta and that the plaintiffs are strangers to their family. She pleaded that according to the information gathered by her, the 1st plaintiff is a Christian and it was not even pleaded that she got converted to Hinduism. Various events that have been taken place in the life of Girishchandra and the manner in which he met with death, are furnished in detail. She prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The 2nd defendant filed written statement stating that they would abide by any adjudication made by the Court.

The Trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 08-03-2001.

Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that even if, one goes by the contents of the plaint, the case presented by the plaintiffs is totally fictitious and the suit was filed only to knock away death-cum-retirement benefits of Girishchandra. He contends that 1st plaintiff did not dispute that she was practicing Christianity in the year 1975 and the question of marriage between her and a person professing Hindu taking place in a temple, does not arise. He further submits that the plaintiffs have pleaded that the 1st defendant was brought to their house and it was she, who left the place on protest. According to the learned counsel, if this was true, any person in the place of the 1st plaintiff would have submitted a complaint alleging bigamy and the very fact that no steps were taken and that she is said to have left the house, would clearly demonstrate the shallowness of the claim of the plaintiffs.

Sri K.R. Sashidharan Nair, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that his client has placed cogent oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court and the findings were recorded with proper reasoning. He contends that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Girishchandra is proved through oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and other documentary evidence. Learned counsel further submits that pw.2 who is none other than the wife of paternal aunt of Girishchandra has stated that she has witnessed the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Girishchandra and the decree passed by the trial Court doe