The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on valid evidence, such as Marriage Certificates and witness testimony, to establish the validity of a marriage. The judgment also emphasizes that the existence of a different view does not warrant interference with the lower courts' findings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007 made in A.S.No.75 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nilgiris, Uthagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2005 made in O.S.No.296 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.)

1. This second appeal is filed at the instance of the second defendant (since deceased). The respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants before the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal are as follows:

3. According to the plaintiff, she is the wife of one late John Thaskood and that their marriage was solemnized as per Christian rites and customs on 22.02.1984 and the marriage was registered at the Office of the Marriage Registrar, Ootacamund. Out of the wedlock, the plaintiff has begotten a child on 16.07.1988 by name Vinoth Thaskood and that the child was baptized on 02.09.2019. While so, John Thaskood died on 21.12.1990 leaving behind the plaintiff and his son Vinoth Thaskood as his legal representatives and heirs to succeed his estate. While so, the second defendant claiming to be the wife of John Thaskood, attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 gave a petition before the Collector of Nilgiris by falsely claiming that they are the sister and wife of John Thaskood. The Collector, thereupon passed an order asking the plaintiff to establish her rights through Court of law. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife and also consequently, sought the relief of injunction. 4. The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 3 and

4. According to the first defendant, the suit properties were originally belonged to one Paul Thaskood, who is the father of the first defendant and her brother Johnson @ John Thaskood. After the demise of the said Paul Thaskood, the suit properties devolved upon the first defendant and his brother Johnson @ John Thaskood. According to the first defendant, John Thaskood died on 21.12.1990 leaving behind his wife Hilda Sarojini Devi viz., the second defendant herein and his children. As such, the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit properties. The first defendant further submits that the Adi Thravida Welfare Officer handed over the possession of the suit property to the first defendant after removing encroachment. Thus, the first defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The second defendant in her written statement has contended that, her husband Johnson also be called as John Thaskood and the marriage between John Thaskood and the second defendant was solemnized, on 30.08.1960. According to the second defendant, she is the legally wedded wife of John Thaskood. She would further submit that out of the wedlock, they had two daughters by name, Mary Reena Subashini and Mariya Madhu Bala and one son viz., Satish Kumar. This defendant further submitted that since she had got some illness, she was advised to stay at Ooty. Hence, she stayed at Ooty for the last about 10 years. The second defendant further submits that while she was in Ooty, there was a relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant's husband and taking advantage of such affair outside the wedlock of the second defendant, the plaintiff claimed the status of the wife of Late John Thaskood. The second defendant dispute the birth of child to the plaintiff through John Thaskood. Even if a child was born to John Thaskood, still he has to be construed as an illegitimate child. She further stated that by taking advantage of the relationship between John Thaskood, the plaintiff stealthily obtained the tax receipts. It is the submission of the s