1. Defendants 3 and 4 of an original suit bearing O.S.No.39/2003, which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bailhongal, Belgaum District are before this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. Respondent No.3 is defendant No.2 in the said suit. Since suit against defendant No.1, Chief Manager Pension Dept., State Bank of Mysore, Head Office at Bangalore, had been dismissed in the trial Court, no appeal has been filed against it. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

2. First plaintiff, Gouravva is the mother of second plaintiff Panchapna. The case of the plaintiffs, as put forth before the trial Court is that, Gouravva had married one person by name Irappa Chanabasappa Uppin. The said Irappa Uppin was working in Indian Army. He suffered severe injuries and therefore, he was discharged from military service on medical grounds in the year 1963. After returning to Bailhongal, his native place, he was employed as security Gunman in State Bank of Mysore, Ramdurg branch and he continued to be a watchman till his death. It is averred that, deceased Irappa Uppin married the first plaintiff about 36-37 years ago prior to the filing of the suit and their marriage was performed at Bailhongal in front of the house of the deceased. After her marriage 1st plaintiff started living with deceased Irappa Uppin. It is their case that, 1st plaintiff and Irappa resided for about six months at Bailhongal and deceased was travelling from Ramdurg to Bailhongal every week. Later on, he rented a house at Ramdurg and took plaintiff No.1 to Ramdurg and there second plaintiff was born.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased was under the complete influence of his younger brothers Basappa and Mallappa and Mallappa's wife. After the birth of plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 came to Bailhongal and lived for about six months. Some disputes arose between Basappa's wife and plaintiff No.1 and Basappa's wife raised hue and cry. Then deceased Irappa took the plaintiffs to Munavalli and they stayed there for six months and later on Irappa took a house in Pyati Khoot of Ramdurg and took both the plaintiffs to Ramdurg. Because of adverse climate, both the plaintiffs returned to Munavalli and plaintiff No.1 insisted the deceased to take both of them either to Bailhongal or Ramdurg. According to 1st plaintiff, deceased declined their offer stating that, if they were taken to Ramdurg, health of the child would be affected and if they were taken to Bailhongal, harmony in the family would be affected.

4. Later on, the deceased purchased a house and land in the name of plaintiff No.1 at Munavalli in the year 1979 after the pension amount was received by him from Army and the savings of his salary. Since then, plaintiffs are stated to be living in the said house at Munavalli and cultivating the land.

5. The deceased, according to the plaintiffs, was not a spendthrift man and was getting a good salary and also pension from the Army. Deceased Irappa retired from the service in the year 1995 and while forwarding his pension claim, he sent the photos of plaintiff No.1 as his wife for the purpose of making provision for family pension through defendant No.2 to defendant No.1. After his retirement, Irappa stayed at Munavalli and because of poor health, he died on 05.07.2002.

6. Plaintiffs wanted a surviving legal heir certificate from Tahasildar and it was issued. Then defendants 3 and 4 objected to the same by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who gave an endorsement to the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary declaratory reliefs. Hence plaintiffs were forced to file a suit for the relief of declaration that 1st plaintiff is the wife of deceased Irappa and second plaintiff is the son born out of the legal wedlock between 1st plaintiff and deceased I