JUDGMENT :

1. At the stage of admission of the second appeal, we allowed learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents to participate in the proceeding. We have examined in detail the judgment and decree of the learned first court and of the first appellate court.

2. One Bhupal Mondal was an employee of the respondent no. 2. He died on 12th June, 2006 after nominating the respondent no. 1 as his nominee to receive the benefits receivable on his death from the respondent no. 2.

3. The material issue for consideration before both the courts below was whether the appellant no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 were or any of them was the legally wedded wife of Bhupal Mondal or whether neither was.

4. The consequential question, which arose, was which of the two the appellant no. 1 or the respondent no. 1 was entitled to receive this benefit.

5. On a prima facie examination of the judgments of the courts below, we find that there is grossly insufficient and inadequate appreciation of the material evidence by the learned judge. This in our opinion raises the question whether those decisions are perverse?

6. On that very question, we admit the appeal.

7. We heard out the appeal itself today i