JUDGMENT :

R.N. Manjula, J.

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009 passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2009 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.

2. The Appellants are the defendants 7 to 11. For the sake of convenience, during this discussion the Appellants and the respondents are referred in the same order in which they were denoted in the suit.

3. The averments of the parties in brief:

The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff got married to late Palani, who was working as a Gangman under the control of defendants 1 to 6 in the Railway Department. The 7th defendant is the second wife of the deceased Palani. The defendants 8 to 11 are the children born through the 7th defendant to the said Palani. When Palani was alive, he deserted the 1st plaintiff and subsequently, the plaintiff filed the petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6 for claiming maintenance from Palani. When the proceedings were pending, Palani died in harness on 02.01.2007. After his demise, the 7th defendant attempted to get all his service benefits along with the defendants 8 to 11. Despite the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Palani, the 12th defendant Tahsildar, Valapady, refused to issue legal heirs certificate. The defendants 7 to 12 are making false claim by alleging that 7th defendant is the legally wedded first wife of the deceased Palani. The 7th defendant being the 2nd wife of the deceased, is not entitled to get any share in the family pension. The deceased Palani had treated the 1st plaintiff as his legally wedded wife and he has entered her name in his service register. He had also utilized his medical benefits and availed treatment facilities for the 1st plaintiff at the Railway hospitals on several occasions. Since the Railway Authorities did not co-operate for disbursing the service benefits of the deceased Palani to the plaintiffs, she has filed the suit to declare that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Palani and to restrain the defendants 1 to 6 not to disburse any sum to the defendants 7 to 11 and also to restrain the 12th defendant from issuing legal heirship certificate to the defendants 7 to 11, without including the name of the plaintiffs.

4. The written statement of the 7th defendant in brief is as under:

The defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 are the authorities of the Railway Administration; they are not aware of the allegations relating to the matrimonial affairs of the deceased Palani; the deceased Palani has declared in all his official records that the defendants 10 and 11 are his sons and he nominated them to get the provident fund and other service benefits after his death; he had also declared the defendants 7, 9 to 11 as his family members. The Railway authorities have not disbursed any portion of the settlement dues, due to pendency of this suit.

4.1. The written statement of the 7th defendant is adopted by the defendants 8 to 11. The 1st plaintiff is not the first wife of the deceased Palani. He worked in the Southern Railway Department as a Gangman and the 7th defendant is the first wife of the deceased Palani and she got married to him before 36 years in the presence of the elders of the village at Uthampatti and 4 children were born to them; however, Palani had illegal relationship with the 1st plaintiff and a female child was born to her through Palani; Only because the 7th defendant is the 1st wife of the deceased Palani, the names of 7th defendant and her children have been shown as the family members of Palani in his Service Register; hence, there is no cause of action and the suit has to be dismissed.

5. The brief facts of the written statement of the 12th defendant:

The 12th defendant has not received any application for issuance of the legal heirship certificate either from the plaintiffs or from the 7th defendant. Hence, the 12th defendant has not issued any leg