( 1 ) R. F. A. 716/1997 is filed by the 1st defendant. R. F. A. 634/1997 is of the 2nd defendant. These two appeals are arising out of common judgment passed in O. S. No. 1058/1995. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the defendants to declare that he alone is entitled to succeed to the estate of late Smt. Bharathi and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 7 from making any payments to defendant No. 1.

( 2 ) AS per the plaint averments, 1st defendant who is the appellant in the first appeal is the father-in-law and that the plaintiff married the daughter of Sadashiva, G. S. Bharathi on 4-4-1986 at Bangalore. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was working as Assistant Manager in N. G. E. F. , Bangalore and that Bharathi was working as a teacher in Government High School. On 21-11-1987, the plaintiff's wife committed suicide. After the death of his wife, at the instance of the 1st defendant, he was also charge-sheeted under Sections 308 and 498-A of IPC in S. C. No. 231/91 and that he was honourably acquitted by the Sessions Court. Against the Judgment of the Sessions Court, the Government had also filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has confirmed the order of acquittal. The 1st defendant - the father-in-law also filed a suit against the order made in O. S. No. 2865/98 for a declaration and for injunction claiming exclusive right over the properties of Bharathi and the said suit came to be dismissed on 28-7-1994 for non-prosecution. Therefore, he filed a suit for declaration and for injunction. The 1st defendant appeared before the Court and filed a detailed written statement. According to him, his daughter was murdered by the plaintiff on 21-11-1987, and therefore the plaintiff is dis-qualified under the law to claim the properties of his daughter. The 1st defendant has relied upon Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 ('the Act' for short) and he has requested the Court to dismiss the suit. The 2nd defendant contended that an amount of Rs. 28,101/- was paid to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant and according to the 2nd defendant, on the application of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant has honoured the claim of the 1st defendant as he was a nominee and therefore, the 2nd defendant requested the Court to dismiss the case.

( 3 ) BASED on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed :1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he married G. S. Bharathi on 4-4-1986 at Andal Kalyana Mantapam at Bangalore, as per Hindu rites?2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the declaration prayed for?3. Whether defendant No. 1 proves, defendant No. 1 and his daughter Gayathri alone are entitled to the suit amounts and the properties?4. What decree or order?additional Issues :1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?2. Whether D-2 proves that there is no cause of action against it?3. Plaintiff has been examined as P. W. 1 and the 1st defendant has been examined as D. W. 1. After appreciating the evidence of the parties, the trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for. In addition to that, the trial Court has also directed the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff in respect of the LIC amount disbursed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree, the present appeals are filed.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the 1st respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in the first appeal is that in view of S. 25 of the Act, the trial Court should have dismissed the suit and according to her, the judgment of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court are not binding on the civil Court to grant a decree in favour of the respondent No. 1. According to her, S. 25 of the Act has not been considered by the trial Court.

( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the LIC of India contends that the LIC of India ha