COMMON JUDGMENT

The Second appeals are preferred by the parents of the deceased/Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran against the respondent/defendant. The suit in O.S.No.322 of 1999 was filed by the appellants seeking the relief to declare as the legal heir of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran. The another suit in O.S.No.252 of 1998 was filed by wife of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran seeking the relief to declare as legal heir of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeaychandran. Both the suits were tried together before the trial Court.

2. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Judge held that the mother, wife and son of the deceased are the legal heirs, accordingly, the suits were decreed.

3. Challenging the said findings, the parents of the deceased preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.146 and 147 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam wherein, the lower Appellate Judge independently analysed the facts and evidence and finally held that based on the agreement of marriage dated 30.09.1992, the respondent is the wife of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and out of wedlock, they begotten a child on 15.10.1993. Hence, the learned Appellate Judge had confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court.

4. Challenging the said findings, the appellants have preferred these second appeals and the same was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Courts below are right in recognising the marriage between the first plaintiff, who is a Muslim and deceased Jeyasundaram, who is a Hindu, in the absence of registration under the Special Marriage Act ?.

(ii) Whether the Court below properly appreciated the evidence adduced with respect to the marriage between the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and Begum Subeda said to have taken place at TTD in Andhra Pradesh ? And (iii) Have the Courts below properly appreciated the validity of a registered agreement entered into by two parties who claim marriage under the said agreement?''

5. Heard both sides.

6. The deceased/Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran was working as Masthur in BSNL, Tindivanam Branch and he has taken a policy in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Further, the said Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran died and thereafter, the dispute arose between the parties with regard to receiving the death benefits of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran. But before the trial Court, it was held that the marriage between wife/Begum Subeda and the said deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran was proved by the wife/Begum subeda by way of Ex.A1/Marriage agreement and out of wedlock a child was born and copy of the birth certificate was produced before the trial Court. Though the said Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and his wife along with their son were lived together for long years and the same was also proved by producing voter list. But the learned counsel for the appellants have objected the agreement of marriage/Ex.A1 stating that it is not a document and the respondent/wife belongs to a Muslim religion, the marriage ought to have been registered under the Special Marriage Act.

7. But before the trial Court, the wife/Begum subeda has produced the evidence to show that the agreement of marriage/Ex.A1 and they have lived together and begotten a child. Further,the wife/Begum subeda was married the deceased Jeyasundaran @ Jeyachandran at Tirupathi temple on 18.09.1992. Thereafter, the same was entered into by an agreement of marriage. Even though, the marriage is not registered, if the couples were lived together for long years as husband and wife under one roof and their cohabitation is sufficient. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Courts below is justifiable, which needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law (i) (ii) and (iii) are answered.

8. The following authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 549:-

15. It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as hus