S. Vimala, J.

1. Who is the wife? Is it the first plaintiff Saradambal or the first defendant Subbammal out of both, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu (who was employed under the second defendant) entitled to receive the terminal benefits payable on account of death of Kesavalu, is the issue raised in this case.

2. The suit had been filed seeking the relief of a) declaration that the plaintiffs, i.e. first plaintiff is the wife and Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased V. Kesavalu, are the legal heirs of the deceased and b) for consequential injunction.

2a. The suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendants filed the appeal. The appeal was allowed to be dismissed for default. Later, restoration application was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the restoration application in C.M.A. No. 868 of 2016. This Court thought it fit to decide the issue regarding restoration, subject to the merits involved in the claim. Therefore, the application was heard along with the appeal and after hearing the broad contentions on both sides, this Court felt that there was a arguable case for the defendant, therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was ordered to be restored.

3. Learned counsel appearing on both sides were permitted to peruse the documents which was produced by the second defendant in the suit viz., Railway Department and further arguments were heard on both sides.

4. According to the plaintiffs, as they are shown as nominees/legal heirs in the service record of the deceased V. Kesavalu, therefore, they are entitled to claim the terminal benefits.

5. The case of the first defendant is that: (a) she is the only legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu and the only son born to them is one Venkatesan and therefore, as such, they are the only persons entitled to claim terminal benefits; (b) the suit itself is not maintainable as the first suit filed in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 was dismissed as not pressed and therefore, for the very same relief, the second suit was not maintainable.

6. According to the second defendant, (a) the deceased V. Kesavalu had been employed as Fitter; he died on 11.06.1993 while in service; and the late employee had declared all the four plaintiffs as his family in the Family Composition Register; (b) the first plaintiff has been mentioned as nominee for the Railway Group Insurance Scheme. Further, the second defendant expected only the order of the Court as to whom the terminal benefits should be disbursed.

7. The following issues have been framed by the trial Court.

(a) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased V. Kesavalu?

(b) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for order of injunction as prayed for?

(c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree as prayed for?

(d) To what reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first and second plaintiffs have been examined as witnesses and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B8 have been marked.

9. The trial Court, on examination of oral and documentary evidence, gave a verdict that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased V. Kesavalu and as such, they are entitled to receive the terminal benefits and thus, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the first defendant has preferred this appeal.

10. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that: (a) the marriage between the first plaintiff and deceased V. Kesavalu is not proved either through the filling of the marriage invitation or through examination of witnesses; (b) the legal heir-ship certificate in favour of the plaintiffs is not issued by the competent authority and as such, it is invalid; (c) the earlier suit in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 having been withdrawn, the present suit is not maintainable and (d)