M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

The first defendant in O.S. No.308 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, who lost before the Courts below, came forward to file this Second Appeal.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows :

2.1. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 had filed the above said Suit to declare that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Munusamy and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock between the first plaintiff and the deceased Munusamy and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3, their men, agents, servants and subordinates to stop the pension already granted in favour of the first defendant and for costs of the suit.

2.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased Munusamy, Son of Thulukanam was an employee in the Mechanical Department, Carriage Works, Perambur, Southern Railways under Token No.WR 1699 as R/Plater II and he retired from service and was in receipt of pension and prior to his marriage with the first plaintiff, he was in illegal contact with the first defendant herein and thereafter, she got separated. The plaintiffs would further aver that the first defendant had also admitted about the marital relationship between her husband Munusamy and the first plaintiff and also executed a Letter of Administration as to the relationship on 09.03.1996 and also gave an affidavit of undertaking as to the payment of some portion of retiral benefits. The plaintiffs would further state that Munusamy died on 10.01.2005 and they came to know that the first defendant has been nominated and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3/respondents 2 and 3 were started paying family pension and therefore, came forward to file the Suit.

2.3. Though the first defendant was served with summons, she did not enter appearance and the defendants 2 and 3 had filed a common written statement denying among other things that the appellant/first defendant had filed an application dated 04.12.2005 along with the Death Certificate of Munusamy to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Gummudipoondi, claiming family pension and it was sanctioned through Pension Payment Order - P.P.O.No.0614214602. It is the stand of the defendants 2 and 3 that family pension payable to the appellant/first defendant is in order and as per the records, the first plaintiff is not the wife of Late Munusamy and however, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were shown as dependants and further that the first plaintiff also did not make any claim immediately after the demise of Munusamy and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Suit.

2.4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings, framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory relief?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction as against the 2nd and 3rd defendant?

3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

During the course of trial, the first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and also examined one Kasi as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the defendants, one Narayanan, the official working in Perambur Wagon Works was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The Trial Court, on consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the Suit as prayed for, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008.

2.5. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. The Lower Appellate Court, on perusal of the grounds of appeal and other materials, framed the following point for consideration:

Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the appeal?

The Lower Appellate Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that though the first defendant claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Munusamy, no piece of evidence has been produced to substantiate the same and the appellant did not file any do