JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the decree dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tufunganj in connection with Title Appeal no. 1 of 2018 arising out of judgment and decree dated 22/12/2017 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Tufanganj in connection with T.S no. 12 of 2017.

2. Plaintiffs’ case in a nutshell is that plaintiff no. 1 Tarulata Dakua was married to deceased Harendra Nath Dakua in 1986 and after marriage plaintiff no. 1 started residing with her aforesaid husband. Due to such wedlock one daughter namely plaintiff no. 2 and one son namely plaintiff no. 3 were born. Said Harendra Nath Dakua was employed as a constable under West Bengal police department and while he was in service he died on 1st may 2006. On his death the plaintiffs being the legal heir of said deceased Harendra Nath Dakua and plaintiff no. 1 being the guardian of plaintiff no. 2 and 3, applied before the Additional treasury officer Tufunganj for pension and death benefits but the said officer by his memo dated 03/10/2007,informed the plaintiffs that no payment can be made in their favour as the authority of the P.P.O has been issued in favour of defendant no. 3 Smt. Angur Bala Dakua vide P.P.O no. Pan/V/F/64850.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that said Angur Bala has/had no connection with the deceased Harendra Nath Dakua and the plaintiff no 1 being the only wife and plaintiff no. 2 and 3 being his son, are his only legal heir and are entitled to receive all the death benefits and outstanding amount.Accordingly plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the money due to death of late Harendra Nath Dakua and also for declaration that said Angur Bala is not entitled to get any amount whatsoever and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 and 2 from paying any amount to said Angur Bala and for a mandatory direction upon defendant no. 1 and 2 to disburse and pay all the aforesaid amounts to the plaintiffs.

4. The defendant no.3 Angur Bala Dakua appeared in the suit and filed written statement contending that a Hindu Marriage between said Harendara Nath Dakua and the defendant no.3 took place on 28^thAshar, 1389 BS corresponding to English calendar month of July, 1982 and they started living as husband and wife and due to said wedlock, the defendant no.3 also gave birth to a female child on 20.07.1983. It has been further contended by the defendant no.3 that the marriage between the deceased Harendra Nath and the defendant no.3 was never dissolved by any decree of divorce and therefore the claim of plaintiffs marriage with said Harendra Nath in the year 1986 has no force in law. It has been further stated that after getting service, deceased Harendra Nath was not giving proper alimony to the defendant no.3, for which she approached before the appropriate authority of police department, who after hearing granted alimony to the defendant no.3 from the salary of deceased HarendaraNath. It is further submitted on behalf of the defendant no.3 that she started getting family pension and other death benefits of the deceased and used to divide financial benefits with the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 and plaintiffs did not raise any objection against said arrangement. The plaintiff no.1 acting as guardian of plaintiff no.2 and 3 had also withdrawn aforesaid amounts on their behalf and therefore she cannot challenge the same. Moreover plaintiff in his plait has also not prayed for cancelling marriage of defendant No.3 with said Harendra Nath.

5. Learned Trial court framed issue to decide as to whether plaintiff no.1 is the legally married wife of late Harendara Nath Dakua and whether late Harendra Nath had any relation with defendant no.3, Angur Bala along with other issues. During the course of trial the plaintiff filed and proved birth certificate, voter ID card, ration card, and some other documents including bank pass book, LIC pol