Legal representative of deceased brought on record.

1. The issues that arise in the above three C.R.Ps. are common and they arise out of three I.As. filed in three different suits pending on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. C.R.P. No. 325 of 1998 is filed against an order in I.A. No. 297 of 1987 in O.S. No. 299 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tiruvannamalai. The above suit is a suit for arrears of mesne profits filed by one Duraisamy Naidu.

3. C.R.P. 326 of 1998 is filed against an order in I.A. No. 298 of 1987 in O.S. No. 103 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The above suit is a suit for recovery of money filed by one Narasimhan against the said Duraisamy Naidu.

4. C.R.P. No. 327 of 1998 arises out of the order in I.A. No. 683 of 1987 in O.S. No. 829 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai and the suit is for partition and separate possession filed by one Sankaran.

5. Duraisamy Naidu was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 299 of 1978 and defendant in other two suits. Duraisamy Naidu died on 2. 1987. On his death, the petitioners in all C.R.Ps. have filed petitions to implead themselves as legal representatives of the deceased Duraisamy Naidu in the various suits either as plaintiffs or defendants on the ground that Vasantha was the wife of Duraisamy Naidu, and petitioners 2 to 4 are his daughters born out of the wedlock of Duraisamy Naidu with Vasantha. It is significant to notice that in the third suit filed by Sankaran for petition against Duraisamy Naidu, Vasantha Ammal is already a party, and she is the second defendant in the suit. The applications to implead themselves as legal representatives of Duraisamy Naidu in all the suits were resisted by the respondent Sankaran stating that he is the only legal heir of late Duraisamy Naidu, and Vasantha Ammal was already married and Vasantha Ammal and her minor daughters are not the legal representative of Duraisamy Naidu. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 103 of 1984 from which CRP No. 326 of 1998 arises also supported the case of the respondent Sankaran. In my view, if the order passed in CRP. No. 327 of 1998 is considered, it would be sufficient to dispose of all the three C.R.Ps.

6. The petitions to implead the legal heirs of the deceased Duraisamy Naidu came up for consideration before the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. Though he has passed separate orders in three separate applications, a reading of all the orders shows that there was a joint consideration of three applications. On behalf of the petitioners, the marriage agreement between Duraisamy Naidu and the first petitioner and the birth certificates of all the three daughters and a son were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the respondent, thirteen documents were marked. The first petitioner and one Chinnammal were examined on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondent, the respondent and one Krishnamoorthy were examined.

7. Learned District Munsif rejected the evidence of the first petitioner on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has not deposed regarding the essential ceremonies performed at the time of her marriage with Duraisamy Naidu. He also rejected the evidence of P.W.2 though she has given the evidence regarding the ceremonies conducted at the time of marriage and the performance of the marriage as well and also the number of persons who attended the marriage. He also refused to give any credence to birth certificates of the three daughters on the basis of the decision in Chellammal v. Angamuthu , 1997 LW (Crl.) 217. He rejected the evidence of marriage agreement on the ground that if the marriage agreement is taken into consideration that would show that the marriage between Duraisamy Naidu and the first petitioner would have been performed in the Tamil month Margazhi, which is not regarded as an auspicious month for the performance of marriage among Hindus. He also held that though in the settlement Ex.P-2, Duraisamy Naidu described