The main legal point established is the admissibility of evidence, presumption of marriage, entitlement to share in death benefits, and drawing a presumption relating to paternity based on documentary and oral evidence.

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The first defendant, Susila, W/o., Late. R. Ganesan in O.S.No.130 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No.130 of 2001 had been filed by G. Rio Mathukumar, who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit, against the 1st defendant, Susila, against the 2nd defendant, the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin, and against the 3rd defendant, the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chennai, seeking a judgment and decree to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/2 share in the death benefits of R. Ganesan, as his legal heir and also to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from receiving the plaintiff's 1/2 share in the death benefits of deceased R. Ganesan.

3. This suit came up for consideration before the learned Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, who by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2002 decreed the suit. Challenging that judgment, the first defendant, Susila, filed A.S.No.1 of 2003 before the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, by judgment and decree dated 01.04.2004, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 2001. Challenging that judgment and decree, the first defendant had filed the present second appeal.

4. The second appeal had been filed on the following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by erroneously relying upon Ex-A5, Ex-A6 to Ex-A21 which are inadmissible in evidence and the same will not establish the marriage?

(b) Whether the Courts below is right in drawing the presumption of marriage on the basis of living together as husband and wife especially the presumption of 2nd marriage cannot be drawn?

(c) Whether the Courts below is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to a share in the death benefits in the absence of any proof that he is the son of the deceased R. Ganesan?"

O.S.No.130 of 2001 (Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin):-

5. The suit had been filed by G.Rio Mathukumar, who was a minor at the time of institution of the suit. He was represented by his next friend and mother Tmt. Pappa. He claimed that he was a son of R.Ganesan. He had filed the suit against Susila, who was described as the wife of R.Ganesan. It must be mentioned that R.Ganesan died on 14.12.2000. The said R.Ganesan was working in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation in several branches at Tuticorin.

6. It had been stated that the mother of the plaintiff, Pappa was also working in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. It is claimed that she married R.Ganesan on 13.07.1986. It was also stated that R.Ganesan had earlier married the first defendant, Susila and that they had no issues. The plaintiff claims to be the son of R.Ganesan. He had instituted the suit seeking one half share in the death benefit of R.Ganesan, as his legal heir and also for consequential injunction restraining the first defendant from receiving his half share of the death benefit of R.Ganesan.

7. The first defendant filed her written statement, in which, she disputed that the mother of the plaintiff and R.Ganesan were actually married. She also disputed the averments that the plaintiff was born to R.Ganesan. It was stated that the suit had been filed only to usurp the entire benefits, which had accrued owing to the death of R.Ganesan. It had been stated that the suit is mischievous in nature and the suit should be dismissed.

8. The second defendant also filed written statement. It had been stated that in the Service Register, R.Ganesan had nominated the first defendant, Susila, who was described as his wife to receive gratuity and ECPF. It had also been stated that the Tahsildar, Ottapidaaram, had also issued legal heir certificate, in which the first defendant, Susila, was shown as the wife of R.Ganesan. It was stated that