JUDGMENT :

B. SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 239 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, is the appellant. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Originally suit was filed by the appellant against respondents seeking relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Karapureddi Apparao and register her name in the records of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The appellant and the respondents herein after referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration of her status as the wife of late K. Apparao with a pleading that D1 Bathla Nookaratnam, who is also claiming to be the wife of late K. Apparao, is not legally wedded to late K. Apparao.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao, who worked as permanent Kalasi in I.O.W. Office, South Central Railway, Tuni, who died in service on 31.01.1998 in a road accident. She submits that after the death of her husband K. Apparao, railway authorities have paid Rs. 2,500/- to her towards funeral expenses and they obtained her thumb impressions in token of paying amount and also obtained her thumb impressions for settlement of other death benefits of her husband. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that D1 is not the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and D1 filed M.C. No. 1 of 1984 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni, against one Bathula Veerraju son of B. Surya Rao, worked as Diesel Assistant Driver, South Central Railway, Rajahmundry, claiming maintenance to herself and her daughter Raghava being a minor wherein Court granted maintenance to the daughter only, holding that daughter of D1 is an illegitimate child born to D1 through B. Veerraju. The plaintiff submits that she approached D5 for death benefits of her husband, who promised to pay the same as per rules but failed to pay and on her enquiry she came to know that D1 made an application to D2 to D5 claiming death benefits of late K. Apparao stating that she is the legally wedded wife.

5. The plaintiff submits that she issued legal notice dated 21.06.1998 to D-2 to D-5 enclosing the documents showing proof that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao but not D-1, which were received by them except D4 and failed to give any reply. The plaintiff also claimed that her name is entered in the records of South Central Railway from 1990 to 1997 in the self declaration given by late K. Apparao as his wife. She filed suit for declaration of her status as a wife of late K. Apparao.

6. The 1st defendant resisted the claim of plaintiff by filing written statement stating that she is not aware of proceedings in M.C. No. 1 of 1984 and she is no way concerned with the said Maintenance Case proceedings. The 1st defendant claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and she submitted application to D2 to D5 for grant of death benefits. She pleaded that mother of late K. Apparao by name Smt. K. Mahalakshmi is alive. She is also necessary party to the suit and specifically pleaded that as per contents of the plaint, the plaintiff name is already in railway records and the suit is unnecessarily filed for the same relief. She prays to dismiss the suit.

7. The 3rd defendant filed written statement admitting the fact that late K. Apparao worked as a Kalasi in South Central Railway, who died on 31.01.1998 while he was in service and they paid Rs. 2,500/- to plaintiff towards funeral expenses. They also stated that late K. Apparao furnished the name of plaintiff as his wife and K. Mahalaxmi as his widowed mother in provident fund nomination form and also in Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme. They have specifically pleaded that the name of D1 not find place in the railway records and as late K. Apparao nominated the plaintiff as his wife to receive family pension, they cannot pay retirement