The findings of a Criminal Court in a maintenance case do not bind a Civil Court in deciding paternity, and the rejection of additional evidence that substantially affects the rights of the parties is an erroneous approach.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the decree and judgement dated 06.12.2019 pssed in A.S.No.22 of 2015 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur by confirming the decree and judgement dated 28.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.189 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif, Karur and allow the Second Appeal.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The fifth defendant in the suit in O.S.No.189 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents 6 to 8 are the defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and are formal parties.

2. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.189 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur seeking for a declaration that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Veeran. Since they had a difficulty in obtaining the legal heirship certificate for the deceased Veeran on account of the objections raised by the first defendant (Karuppayee), who also claims to be the wife of late Veeran, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit seeking for the declaratory relief. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant Karuppayee died and the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application to bring on record her son, namely, the fifth defendant as her legal representative. The fifth defendant was disclosed as son of Chinnu and not Veeran in the application filed to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased first defendant Karuppayee. Since the notice remained unserved in the said interlocutory application despite attempts being made, the Trial Court had permitted substituted service through paper publication for serving the notice on the fifth defendant. Accordingly, paper publication was effected and despite the same, since the fifth defendant did not enter appearance, he was set ex parte by the Trial Court. Before the Trial Court, neither Karuppayee while she was alive nor the fifth defendant filed their respective written statements.

3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed five documents, which were marked as exhibits A1 to A5. The exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiffs are as follows:

Two witnesses were also examined on the side of the plaintiffs, namely, the first plaintiff Kannammal as P.W.1 and A.Shanmugam as P.W.2, who claims to be the attestor of the Will dated 30.06.1997 allegedly executed by the deceased Veeran. On the side of the defendants, no documents were filed and no witness was examined. The defendants 2 to 4 are only formal parties and in their written statement, they have agreed to abide by any directions given by the Trial Court.

4. It is to be noted that the first defendant Karuppayee died during the pendency of the suit and the fifth defendant, who is her son, has been brought on record as her legal representative. It is also to be noted that the fifth defendant has also been set ex parte by the Trial Court based on the substituted service effected through paper publication on him. The Trial Court passed an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs by its judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015 in O.S.No.189 of 2009 and granted the relief of declaration as prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit by declaring them as the only legal heirs of the deceased Veeran. Aggrieved by the same, the fifth defendant, who is the son of the deceased first defendant and who claims that he is also the son of the deceased Veeran, filed a first appeal before t