Lower appellate court basing its findings on assumptions and not on evidence.

Parties herein will be referred according to their ranks in O.S.No.1647 of 1993 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. O.S.No.1647 of 1993 and O.S.2074 of 1993 are two suits filed by respective plaintiffs herein claiming themselves as legally wedded wife and children of late Palanisamy.

2. P.Kamakshi who is first plaintiff in O.S.No.1674 of 1993 filed the suit for declaration that she along with her children who are plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the only legal heirs of Palanisamy who died as Master craftsman in Southern Railway at Perambur and who died in a railway accident on 9. 1992. According to her, her marriage with Palanisamy was performed according to Hindu rites on 11. 1962 at Varadammal Thottam, Berracha Road, Kilpauk Gardens, Madras and subsequent to her marriage, herself and Palanisamy were residing at Door No.2, Ujjaini Street, Ayanavaram, Madras for about 33 years. Thereafter, plaintiffs are residing at the present address i.e., at No.21, Somasundara Devar 5th Street, Ayanavaram, Madras. It is their case that first plaintiff stood as surety for the loans received by Palanisamy and after his death, creditors also issued notice asking first plaintiff to close the transactions. The railways who is the employer of late Palanisamy also intimated first plaintiff that a claim is also made by one Devaki claim in herself as legally wedded wife of Palanisamy and employer wanted a certificate from Civil Court entitling her to receive the monetary benefits due to deceased Palanisamy. It is also stated that in view of the premature death of her husband, her son Ruthrakumar, who is second plaintiff also received financial assistance from second defendant. It is further averred that even if late Palanisamy had any connection with first defendant, she cannot claim her status as wife of deceased especially when first marriage was subsisting. The suit was therefore laid to get a declaration that she and other plaintiffs born to her in Palanisamy alone are entitled to the monetary benefits due to deceased Palanisamy.

3. In the written statement filed by first defendant i.e., Devaki, she alleged that she was married to Palanisamy, according to Hindu Rites, on 16. 1981 at Sri Arulmighu Agastheeswaram Alayam in the presence of elderly members and relatives of both families and in that marriage she has given birth to four children. According to her, first plaintiff cannot claim as legally wedded wife of deceased Palanisamy and except herself and her four children. Nobody is entitled to inherit the estate of deceased.

4. Devaki along with her children, filed O.S.No.2074 of 1993 claiming themselves as legal heirs of deceased Palanisamy. In that suit, name of first defendant is stated as ‘Kamakshi alias Kala Jacob’.

5. In the written statement filed in that suit, first defendant denied that her name is not Kala Jacob and she is known only as Kamakshi. She also reiterated her contentions as stated in the suit O.S.No.1647 of 1993.

6. Both these suits were jointly tried and evidence was taken in O.S.No.1647 of 1993.

7. During trial Kamakshi got examined herself as P.W.1 and plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S.No.1647 of 1993 got themselves examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Documentary evidence on the side of plaintiff consist of Exs.A-1 to A-22. On the side of defendants Devaki was examined as D.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 to 4. Documentary evidence on the side of defendants consist of Exs.B-1 to B-14.

8. After evaluating entire evidence trial court as per judgment dated 26. 1996 held that first plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Palanisamy and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are born to her in Palanisamy. Declaration as sought for was granted. It further held that Devaki is not legally wedded wife and suit filed by her was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Devaki and her children filed A.S.No.128 of 1996 against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.2074 of 1993 and against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1047 of 1993, she f