Validity of nomination made for pension not to a legacy married life.

Second Appeal No.1324 of 1989:This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2, who claim to be the wife and son of one Narasinghan, who died on 26. 1984. He met with an accident on 26. 1984 and died on 26. 1984. He was employed as an Assistant (Agricultural Demonstration), in the Office of the Assistant Director (Agriculture), Seed Centre, Cuddalore. The suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the eight defendant Poongothai are the only legal heirs of the deceased Narasinghan and they are entitled to receive the amounts due to the deceased by way of service benefits, provident fund and death-cum-retirement gratuity, pension, etc. The dispute, in short, is between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was married to Narasinghan somewhere in June, 1946 and the second plaintiff was born to them. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant was having illicit intimacy with the deceased and he drove the first plaintiff away from the house after he came into contact with the first defendant. Per contra, the case of defendants 1 and 2 is that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of deceased Narasinghan and the first defendant got married to him in January, 1948 and she was the only legally wedded wife. It is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that the second defendant was one of the sons born to the first defendant and Narasinghan, and the other children were dead. It is also contended by them that deceased Narasinghan had nominated them to receive the service benefits and in view of the nomination the plaintiffs cannot claim any right to the same.

2. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them and declared that the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant are the only legal heirs of the deceased Narasinghan. On appeal, the lower appellate court modified the same by holding that besides the plaintiffs the second defendant would also be a legal heir as he is a legitimate son of deceased Narasinghan by virtue of the provisions of Sec.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended. Defendants 1 and 2 are aggrieved of the grant of decree in favour of the plaintiffs and they have preferred this appeal. There is no memorandum of cross objections at the instance of the plaintiffs.

.3. The question whether the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Narasinghan is a question of fact. The courts below have considered the entire evidence on record and come to the conclusion that-the first plaintiff was married to deceased Narasinghan somewhere in 1943 and she was a properly wedded wife. It is also found on facts that the second plaintiff and the 8th defendant are children born to the first plaintiff and Narasinghan. The findings of the courts below are attacked by learned counsel for the appellants on this ground. According to him the evidence given by the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs is wholly discrepant in material particulars and no reliance could have been placed by the courts of fact on such evidence. It is submitted that according to the first plaintiff as P.W.1 she was married about 47 years prior to her deposition while according to P.W.2 she was married thirty years prior to his deposition. It is submitted that according to P. W.3 the marriage took place 40 years prior to his evidence and according to P.W.7 the marriage took place in 1943. No doubt there is discrepancy with regard to the year of the marriage. But that has been taken note of by both the courts below. When the matter is spoken to by witnesses after more than three decades it is quite natural that they are not in a position to give the date or year correctly. The witnesses are not highly educated so as to remember it precisely. Their natural deficiencies have been taken into account by the courts below and it is found that the first plaintiff was married to deceased