The court emphasized the importance of upholding the marriage rather than picking holes in the evidence and highlighted the principles of substantial question of law.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2008 passed by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.640 of 2006.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A recapitulation and resume of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the terminal benefits of her son A.M.Nagarajan as L.R.

- for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 from settling the terminal benefits/death benefits of late A.M.Nagarajan to the 4th defendant who has no right whatsoever to claim the same as she is not the legally wedded wife of late A.M.Nagarajan and for costs of the suit.

(extracted as such)

b. D4 filed the written statement and D3 filed separately another written statement on behalf of the Department, resisting the suit.

c. Whereupon issues were framed. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one A.M.Srinivasan, examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A27. On the defendants' side, D4 examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B17.

d. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that D4 and the deceased A.M.Nagarajan got married legally and gave birth to children and that D4 is the legitimate widow of the deceased.

e. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, appeal was filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

e. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below have not committed serious error amounting to miscarriage of justice in not going into the issue whether there had been a valid solemnization of marriage as per Hindu Law on 14.11.1983 between the fourth respondent and late A.M.Nagarajan?

2. Whether the courts below were right in concluding that the 4th respondent was the validly wedded wife of A.M.Nagarajan solely on the basis of Ex.B2 and other records submitted by the 4th respondent?

3. Whether the courts below had erred in law in presuming that the marriage between the 4th respondent and A.M.Nagarajan was validly solemnized without there being any material warranting such presumption?

4. Whether the courts below were right in presuming a valid solemnization of marriage between the 4th respondent and A.M.Nagarajan when the evidence of DW1 is clearly to the contrary?

5. Whether the courts below were right in law in concluding that the records and evidence submitted by the 4th respondent establish a valid marriage between the 4th respondent and A.M.Nagarajan?

6. Whether the courts below were right in concluding that the 4th respondent was a legal heir of A.M.Nagarajan?

(extracted as such)

4. Heard both sides.

5. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following principles as found enunciated and enshrined in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545 – HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL.

24. . . .

(iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence;

(ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. Wh