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 in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, dispensing with all formalities.

8. Both the appellant no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 claim to have been married to Bhupal. Neither of them has been able to produce any certificate of marriage. Also neither of them has been able to produce any person or persons who were witnesses to such marriage.

9. The appellant no. 1 has averred in the plaint that she was married to Bhupal on 9th December, 1973 and that the appellant no. 2 was born to them on 2nd April, 1975. In evidence she has been able to produce the records of the hospital where the appellant no. 2 was born. In those records the name of Bhupal is recorded as his father. She has also produced a deed of transfer where she was a party and where she was described as Bhupal’s wife. There are other documents also viz. voter’s identity card, ration card, identity card and so on of the appellant no. 1/appellant no. 2 where the name of Bhupal finds mention as the appellant no. 1’s husband or appellant no. 2’s father.

10. The respondents also filed documents like records of the Howrah Improvement Trust, salary bills of Bhupal, his membership form for the Howrah Municipal Corporation Trust contributory provident fund, gratuity form filled up by Bhupal Mondal and so on where the respondent no. 1 is declared as the nominee.

11. On the basis of these documents both the courts below have come to the finding that the appellant no. 1 has not been able to prove that she was the legally married wife of Bhupal.

12. In our opinion, the documents produced by the appellants were neither contemporaneous to the death of Bhupal nor contemporaneous to filing of the suit. They were executed over a long period of time. Bhupal never came forward to challenge the use of his name by the appellant no. 1, as her husband. All these are relevant facts which needed active consideration by the learned courts below.

13. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal lies from a decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court only if a substantial question of law is involved. Is a substantial question of law involved in this case?

14. The first appellate court is the last court for determination of facts. Usually that determination is final. It is well settled that this determination can be interfered with on second appeal only if it is perverse. A perverse finding of facts gives rise to a substantial question of law.

15. The Supreme Court has made pronouncements on this subject.

16. In Damodar Lal –vs- Sohan Devi and Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 78 it observed on what is a substantial question of law as follows:

“6. The tenants pursued the matter in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2000 before the High Court of Rajasthan which was allowed by the impugned judgment da