The reliance on additional evidence not properly admitted constitutes a reversible error, thus restoring the trial court's ruling on marital status and service benefits.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.259/2010 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. (‘First Appellate Court’ for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction, declaring that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa and restraining the defendants, her agents, etc from receiving the service benefits of the deceased Hanumantharayappa from defendant No.2.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa and their marriage was performed on 07.05.1974 as per the customs prevailed in their community and they lived together as husband and wife. Hanumantharayappa joined the services of the police department as police constable and subsequently by virtue of promotion, he became the Sub-Inspector of police. During his service, as Sub-Inspector he served in various places, and lastly he was transferred to KGF. On 21.09.2004, he met with an accident and died leaving behind the plaintiff as her LR. After his demise, defendant No.1 came forward to claim that she was the wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa and she claimed the entire service benefits i.e., family pension, death relief fund, etc. After coming to the notice of the said fact, the plaintiff filed an application before defendant No.2 narrating the factual aspects that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa. It is contended that defendant No.1 is making a false claim that she is the wife of deceased Hanumantharayappa only with an intention to knock off the service benefits of the deceased Hanumanthrayappa. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiff is not a legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa, and it is contended that defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa and the plaintiff created the documents to knock of the terminal benefits. It is contended that defendant No.1 alone is entitle for the service benefits of the deceased Hanumantharayappa and they lived together at Doddabelavadi village and out of their wedlock they got three sons and name of defendant No.1 is shown as nominee in the service records of the deceased Hanumantharayappa. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues and additional issues.

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Hanumantharayappa?

ii. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is entitled for the service benefits of the deceased Hanumantharayappa from the 2^nd defendant?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

iv. What order or decree?

Additional Issue No.1:

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1^st defendant is making efforts to get the service benefit of deceased Hanumantharayappa on the false ground that she is the legally wedded wife of Hanumantharayappa?

8. The plaintiff to substa