Civil Courts have jurisdiction to grant declaratory decrees concerning legal heirs and marriage validity; appellate courts must substantively analyze evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

This Second Appeal is before this Court on account of the Order of Remand passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.432 of 2018 dated 16.01.2018.

2. I heard Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham for the appellants. Despite a couple of opportunities granted, there has been no representation for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The 1^st plaintiff, R.Kasthuri claims to be the wife of one Gunaseelan, S/o.V.M.Aalai. She pleaded that, Gunaseelan passed away on 13.09.1996. From the wedlock between the 1^st plaintiff and Gunaseelan, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were born. She impleaded the defendants, who, according to her were unlawfully claiming to be the legal heirs of the very same Gunaseelan. She also impleaded her mother-in-law (mother of Gunaseelan), as the 3^rd defendant.

5. The plaintiffs had secured a legal heirship Certificate from the Tahsildar on 11.10.1996. Similarly, the defendants 1 and 2 had also secured a legal heirship certificate stating that they are the legal heirs of Gunaseelan. As there where two conflicting legal heirship certificates, the plaintiffs approached the District Collector, Chennai District, for rectification of the records and to set aside the Certificate obtained by the defendants 1 and 2.

6. The District Collector, vide order dated 28.06.1997, cancelled both the certificates i.e., certificates issued to the plaintiffs, as well as, that issued to the defendants, and directed the parties to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and get a declaration as to who the legal heirs of the deceased Gunaseelan are. Hence, the plaintiffs presented the suit seeking a declaration that the 1^st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Gunaseelan and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the said Gunaseelan. Since there was a dispute, they impleaded the defendants 1 and 2, who claimed to be the legal heirs of the deceased Gunaseelan, and the mother of Gunaseelan as the 3^rd defendant. This suit was numbered as O.S.No.222 of 1998.

7. Summons were served on the defendants.

8. The stand of the defendants is that the 1^st defendant is the legally wedded wife of Gunaseelan. She claimed that she married Gunaseelan two years prior to the alleged marriage between the 1^st plaintiff and Gunaseelan. She stated her marriage was solemnised on 30.04.1979. The defendants further pleaded that, from the wedlock between Gunaseelan and the 1^st plaintiff (R.Kasthuri), two children were born; one Ramesh, who is the 2^nd defendant, and another daughter by name Gunasundari. They claimed that there was no dispute on the date of death of Gunaseelan. They stated that Gunaseelan was residing with the defendants. Soon after his death, they claimed that the plaintiffs, along with certain unlawful elements, entered the property of the defendants and claimed the body of Gunaseelan. However, they denied the averments made by the plaintiffs that the last rites were performed by them. On the contrary, they contended that the last rites were performed only by the 2^nd defendant, Ramesh. Apart from pleading that the 1^st defendant had married Gunaseelan earlier than the 1^st plaintiff, the defendants also projected that the 1^st plaintiff had married one Munusamy. Munusamy, it was claimed, was an employee of Corporation of Chennai. They further pleaded that Munusamy passed away on 13.08.1992 and that the children, namely, plaintiffs 2 to 4, were the children born to Munusamy and M.Kasthuri, rather than to the deceased Gunaseelan.

9. Since Kasthuri was already married to Munusamy, the defendants contended that the plaint