J U D G M E N T

Defendants are before this Court in the second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, whereby, the suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction was partly allowed, holding that the plaintiff to be entitled for half share in the monthly pension of the deceased and also the service emoluments of the deceased Imamsab.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Suit seeking for relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Imamsab Rajesab and consequential relief of injunction. Plaint avers that deceased Imamsab had married defendant No.1, however, had given divorce by triple Talak on 15.08.1976 in the presence of elderly members and in the presence of father of defendant No.1, as such, defendant No.1 is not the wife of deceased Imamsab. The plaintiff denied the paternity of defendant No.2, it is averred that deceased Imamsab was serving as a “Gangman” and during the service, he died on 06.11.2004 and the deceased Imamsab is survived by his wife, namely, the plaintiff as his heir. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no claim and obtaining heirship certificate from the Tahsildar, Mudhol, is by misrepresentation. It is averred that the plaintiff alone succeeded to the properties of Imamsab and the emoluments-cum-benefits.

4. Pursuant to the summons issued by the trial Court, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 inter alia, contended and denied that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Imamsab and about the performance of their marriage. The defendants denied the divorce of defendant No.1 by triple Talak on 15.08.1976

5. Defendant Nos.3-State and defendant No.4-the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-Division, Mudhol filed separate written statement, inter alia, contending that Saidama-defendant No.1 having produced the legal heir certificate pertaining to deceased Imamsab, they have proceeded to settle the pension benefits in favour of the said Saidama. It is further averred that deceased Imamsab during his service has not informed about the second marriage with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not produced any heirship certificate before them. It is averred that, as per the Karnataka Government Servants Pension Family Rules, 1964 (‘the KGS (Family Pension) Rules, 1964’ for short), unless the first wife divorced through the Court decree only, on the basis of the oral say of the plaintiff, it cannot be accepted to say that defendant No.1 is the divorced wife of the deceased Imamsab. As per the rules and regulations, on 06.11.2004, they paid the funeral expenses to defendant No.1 and they also settled the service benefits in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

6. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the only heir of deceased Imamsab Ramadurg?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 and 2 misrepresented themselves as heirs of deceased illegally collected the group insurance amount from defendant No.4?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitle for the benefits in respect of items referred in para No.8 of the plaint?

4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is entitled to claim the amount and benefits in respect of lands bearing R.S.No.32/1 and 17/5 of Palimany and property bearing No.1096/1 of Lokapur?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought?

6. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is entitle for the relief of mandatory injunction as sought in para No.16(c) of the plaint?”

7. In order to substantive their claim, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.18. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 got themselves examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and five wit