The nomination in the service register and the sufficiency of evidence to prove marriage were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2000 made in A.S.No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2000 and made in O.S.No. 226 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur.)

1. The plaintiff B.Subatra in O.S.No. 226 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tirupur is the appellant herein.

2. The said suit had been filed by the plaintiff B.Subatra, seeking a declaration that she is the only legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian and for a permanent injunction restraining anybody else from receiving the death benefits of the said Balasubramanian from the office of the 1st to 5th defendants/Education Department. The said suit was dismissed by Judgement dated 21.03.2000.

3. The plaintiff then filed the First Appeal in A.S.No. 17 of 2000 before the Sub Court at Tirupur. The said Appeal suit was also dismissed by Judgment dated 30.10.2000. She then preferred the present Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in non-suiting the plaintiff by holding that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balasubramanian without properly adverting to Ex.A-1 to A-4 documents and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to PW 4 in its true perspective?;

2. Whether in law the mere nomination of the eleventh respondent by the deceased in the service register will cloth the said respondent for the entitlement of the retirement and other benefits of the deceased to the exclusion of the appellant herein when the said respondent has failed to prove her alleged marriage with the deceased in a manner known to law?;

3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellant herein is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased by rejecting the evidence of PW2 and PW4 who have spoken about the marriage and who are independent witnesses without assigning any proper reasons.” O.S.No. 226 of 1997 – District Munsif Court, Tirupur:

5. The plaintiff B.Subatra claimed that she was married with Balasubramanian, son of Ramasamy Chettiyar in accordance with the customary practice of 24, Manai Telugu Chettiyars on 20.05.1964. The marriage was presided by a former State Legislative Assembly Member P.S.Chinnadurai. After marriage, Balasubramanian was appointed as a teacher in a municipal school of Mettupalayam. They did not have any children. After about six years, she went to stay with her brothers. Balasubramanian later worked as teacher in Nanjappa Higher Secondary School at Tirupur. He died on 04.04.1997. He left behind as his legal heirs, the plaintiff and his mother, the 10th defendant Govindammal. The plaintiff applied to the Headmistress in Nanjappa Higher Secondary School to pay the death benefits to her. She also issued an Advocate notice on 23.04.1997.

6. It was further stated that the 11th defendant Lalitha who was Headmistress in Chellapuram Municipal Primary School, Tirupur claimed that she was the wife of Balasubramanian and had also obtained a legal heirship certificate and was taking efforts to receive the death benefits. It was stated that the plaintiff and the 10th defendant alone are the legal representatives of Balasubramanian and therefore the suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife and for injunction restraining anybody from receiving the death benefits of Balasubramanian.

7. The 4th defendant/Headmistress of Nanjappa Municipal Higher Secondary School, filed a written statement stating that during his lifetime Balasubramnian participated in school functions along with the 11th defendant Lalitha as his wife. Even in the service register, he endorsed that after his lifetime the 11th defendant Lalitha as his nominee and as legal heir which entires have been registered in the service