The failure to seek the relief of recovery of possession rendered the suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam made in A.S.No.9 of 2010 dated 06.04.2011 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, made in O.S. No.59 of 2007 dated 12.09.2009).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2010 on the file of District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2009 passed in O.S. No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The first defendant in OS.No.59 of 2007 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were purchased by her husband late Sundarraj by virtue of the sale deeds dated 06.06.1967, 15.07.1971 and 06.08.1985 and the 11th item in the suit properties devolped upon him in a partition effected with his brothers and the deceased Sundarraj was enjoying the same by paying the tax and kists and the revenue records also stood in the name of the deceased Sundarraj. The plaintiff's husband Sundarraj died on 27.08.2006 leaving her as his sole legal heir and out of the wedlock no children born to them. The first defendant was working as a maiden servant in the house and taking advantage of the abovesaid position, the first defendant, by giving false assurances, insisted Sundarraj to purchase the properties in her name and Sundarraj had also purchased about three veli of lands in her name. However, the above properties were under the cultivation of the deceased Sundarraj. The first defendant never married Sundarraj at any point of time and therefore, after the demise of Sundarraj, it is only the plaintiff who is entitled to succeed to all his properties. At the instigation of the second defendant, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit properties. After the demise of Sundarraj, it is only the plaintiff who had been enjoying the suit properties. The plaintiff issued the legal notice on 10.02.2007 to the defendants. The defendants sent the reply on 24.02.2007 containing false allegations and that the allegation that the first plaintiff married Sundarraj on 07.06.1997 at Swamimalai Temple is false and that the allegation that they lived as husband and wife for more than 30 years is also false. Even otherwise, when the marriage between Sundarraj and the plaintiff was subsisting, the alleged marriage of the first defendant with Sundarraj is invalid. The first defendant is not entitled to claim any right over the suit properties and the allegation that the plaintiff's whereabouts were not known for more than 10 years is also false. Hence, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendants filed the written statement by denying all the averments contained in the plaint and put forth the case that the marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased Sundarraj has not been established and the plaintiff and Sundarraj had not lived husband and wife as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the first wife of the deceased Sundarraj. If really the plaintiff is the first wife of the deceased Sundarraj, she would have produced all the original title deeds as well as the parent title deeds pertaining to the suit properties. Without establishing the marriage with Sundarraj, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration as prayed for. The photographs projected by the plaintiff, by themselves, would not lend support to the case of the plaintiff that she is the first wife of the deceased Sundarraj and according to the defendants, the marriage between the first defendant and the decea