IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that credible evidence is essential to prove marital status in succession disputes, particularly when conflicting claims arise.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 46 of 2006, dated 10.6.2008, on the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram reversing the order and decreetal order made in S.O.P. No. 2 of 2004, dated 24.10.2005, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 46 of 2006, dated 10.6.2008, on the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram reversing the order and decreetal order made in S.O.P. No. 2 of 2004, dated 24.10.2005, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

2. The first respondent in Succession O.P is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 filed Succession O.P claiming themselves as the legal heirs of their brother Srikumaran Nair. The Succession O.P was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal filed by the respondents 3 and 4, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the Succession O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent in the Succession O.P has come by way of this Second Appeal.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, they are brothers and sisters of the deceased Srikumaran Nair and he died as a bachelor. The appellant/first respondent in Succession O.P claiming herself as legally wedded wife of Srikumaran Nair, attempted to withdraw the monetary benefits of the deceased and in these circumstances, the above said O.P was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 by arraying her as first respondent.

4. The Succession O.P was resisted by the appellant/first respondent on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of Srikumaran Nair and it was her case that the marriage between her and Srikumaran Nair was solemnized in Kumara Koil and thereafter, they had lived as husband and wife.The allegation in the O.P as if Srikumaran Nair died as a bachelor was specifically denied. Therefore the appellant claimed that she was the class-I heir of Srikumaran Nair and sought for dismissal of the Succession O.P.

5. Before the Court of first instance, the third petitioner was examined as PW-1 and 22 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On the side of the appellant/first respondent, she was examined as RW-1 and three other witnesses, the employees of the company in which the deceased worked, were examined as RW-2 to RW-4. On behalf of the respondents in Succession O.P, six documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

6. The Court of first instance, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant proved her marriage with the deceased Srikumaran Nair and consequently, dismissed the Succession O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 46 of 2006, on the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Court of First Instance and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent in the Succession O.P has come by way of this Second Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Marriage Certificate issued by the Manager of Devaswom Board was marked as Ex.R4 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.R2 in Trial Court Judgment) and the same clinchingly proved the factum of marriage between the appellant and Srikumaran Nair. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the copy of the Marriage Register issued by Devaswom Board was marked as Ex.R6 and in the said document, second petitioner Manikandan signed as one of the witnesses for the marriage and he has not been examined by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn against the respondents. The learned counsel also submitted that the husband of PW-1, in his evidence in O.S. No. 361 of 2001 admitted that the first respondent got married and his deposition was marked as Ex.R5 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.R3 in the Tr