JUDGMENT :

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

1. The defeated plaintiff in O.S. No. 290 of 2007 of Family Court, Kollam, is the appellant herein. She filed that suit for declaring her status as the legally wedded wife of diseased Rajendran Pillai, for injunction both prohibitory and mandatory and also for declaring partition deed No. 3018 of 2005 as null and void.

2. The siblings of deceased Rajendran Pillai were defendants 1 to 3, the Secretary of Co-operative Banks, where deceased Rajendran Pillai was having deposits, were defendants 4 and 5, and the President and Secretary of Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, Kayalazhikam, were additional defendants 6 and 7, in the suit and they are respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in the appeal.

3. The case of the appellant is that she married deceased Rajendran Pillai as per Hindu Nair rites and custom on 24.01.1989 and thereafter, they were living together as husband and wife till his death on 02.09.2005. A schedule landed property and B schedule Bank deposits absolutely belonged to him. After death of Shri Rajendran Pillai, respondents 1 to 3, who are his siblings, evicted the appellant from that property, and they executed partition deed No. 3018 of 2005, dividing the property among them. Since she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai having no issues, she is the sole legal heir to inherit his properties and other assets. So, according to her, respondents 1 to 3, have no right over A schedule property or B schedule Bank accounts/deposits. Hence, she filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

4. Respondents 1 to 3 filed written statement opposing her claim. According to them, Shri Rajendran Pillai never married the appellant and they never lived together as husband and wife. After divorcing his wife Geetha Rani, Shri Rajendran Pillai was leading a spiritual life till his death on 02.09.2005. On his death, A and B schedule properties devolved upon respondents 1 to 3, being his legal heirs. The appellant has no right whatsoever, over A schedule immovable property or B schedule amounts.

5. No written statement was filed by defendants 4 and 5. Additional defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement along with a counter claim for declaring absolute right of the Temple over A schedule property, and also to declare partition deed No. 3018 of 2005 as null and void.

6. The Family Court, formulated necessary issues and the parties went on trial. PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Extx.A1 to A16 were marked from the side of petitioner/appellant and DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B25 were marked from the side of respondents 1 to 3. Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked as witness exhibits.

7. After analyzing the facts and evidence, the Family Court, dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim with cost of respondents 1 to 3, against which the appellant has come up in this appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

9. The main question posed in this appeal is whether the appellant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai. Admittedly, the appellant was the person reciting Bhagavatham in Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, the family temple of Shri Rajendran Pillai. According to her, they fell in love and on 24.01.1989, their marriage was solemnized in that temple as per Hindu Nair rites and custom. Thereafter, for 16 years till the death of Shri Rajendran Pillai, they were living together as husband and wife.

10. In order to prove her marriage, she produced Ext.A7 copy of the marriage certificate issued by Sri. G. Gopinatha Pillai, Secretary of Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple,. That certificate is not bearing any date. PW-7 is Sri. G. Gopinatha Pillai who issued that certificate. He gave testimony to the effect that, the appellant Saraswathy who was the Sweeper in that Temple, brought that certificate, and he affixed his signature in it. He categorically stated that, he had no information about any marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the