The validity of marriage under Hindu law requires conclusive proof, reinforcing the trial court's ruling when evidence substantiates the marriage's legitimacy.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendants aggrieved by the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Munsiff Court, Alathur, in O.S. No. 99 of 2015 affirmed in A.S. No. 93 of 2019 by the Addl. District Court – IV, Palakkad.

2. The plaintiff claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Chandran and on his death, she sued the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the marriage of the plaintiff with Chandran is not legal inasmuch the plaintiff was married to one Gopalan and during the subsistence of that marriage, she had contracted to marry with Chandran and, therefore, she cannot be held as the legally wedded wife of Chandran. In support of their plea that the plaintiff had married one Gopalan, defendants examined the said Gopalan as DW3 and he deposed that he had married the plaintiff after following the religious ceremonies.

2.1. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that there was only a living-in relationship with Gopalan and that she never married him. The plaintiff produced photographs evidencing the marriage with late Chandran and also examined one of the common friends of the plaintiff and defendants as PW2, who deposed that he had witnessed Chandran marrying the plaintiff. Certificate of marriage registration was also produced by the plaintiff, and it was accepted by the Courts below.

2.2. As regards the plea of the defendants that the plaintiff had married Gopalan, they had contended that Gopalan had married the plaintiff in an SNDP Sakha. However, the defendants could not produce the necessary certificates issued by the said Sakha in order to substantiate their claim. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree for partitioning the property in metes and bounds.

2.3. Aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and an attempt was made to produce additional documents in the form of an agreement between DW3, Gopalan, and the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff had entered into a contract of marriage with Gopalan. However, the First Appellate Court rejected the application stating that the conditions prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, were not followed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

3. In the appeal, it is the specific case of the appellants that the plaintiff’s first marriage with Gopalan is substituting during which she married late Chandran and thus the plaintiff cannot be considered as the legally wedded wife of Chandran. It is also the specific case of the appellants that the First Appellate Court failed to consider the application preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, in its correct perspective and erred egregiously in rejecting the application.

4. Heard Sri. K. Anand, the learned Counsel for the appellants.

5. On considering the submissions raised across the Bar by the learned Counsel for the appellants, this Courts finds that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the present appeal. Prima facie, the plaintiff was able to prove that her marriage with late Chandran was conducted after following Hindu religious ceremonies and the same was preceded by a registration and Ext. A2 registration certificate was also produced. On contrary, though the defendants asserted before the Courts below that the marriage of the plaintiff with late Chandran was during the subsistence of her marriage with Gopalan (DW3), they failed to substantiate their plea except the oral testimony of DW3. This Court finds that the oral testimony of DW3 alone is not sufficient especially in the light of uncontr