Documentary evidence of marriage is prioritized over oral claims in determining beneficiaries for retirement benefits.

Kerala State … Respondents R1 Died, RR2 & 3 already on record and are recorded as Legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 22.02.2024, made in S.A.Nos.445 & 446 of 2018 & CMP.No.12137 of 2018 COMMON PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code , filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.124 of 2008, dated 29.08.2011 passed by the II Additional Sub- Judge, Salem, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1183 of 2005, dated 20.08.2008, passed by the Principal District Munsif, Salem, partly decreeing the said suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 herein praying for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and praying to set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar in both Appeals For Respondents : R1-Died No Appearance for R2 in S.A.No.445/2018 Mr.K.Thirukumaran for RR3 to 5 No appearance for R3 in S.A.No.446/2018

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Second Appeals had been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.124 of 2008, dated 29.08.2011 passed by the II Additional Sub-Judge, Salem, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1183 of 2005, dated 20.08.2008, passed by the Principal District Munsif, Salem, partly decreeing the said suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 herein praying for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and praying to set aside the same.

2. Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.K.Thirukumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondents 1 & 2 along with 6^th respondent had filed a Suit in O.S.No.1183 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 5 from disbursing the death-cum-retirement benefits of the appellant's husband in her favour and also for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pay the said benefits to them. The said Suit was dismissed in so far the respondents 1 & 2 are concerned and was decreed inso far the 6^th respondent is concerned and while granting the mandatory injunction apart from the 6^th respondent, the daughter of the appellant was also held to be entitled for the death cum retirement benefits of the deceased Dhandapani. The respondents 1 & 2 aggrieved against the same, had filed an appeal against the dismissal of the Suit in their respect, the appellant had also filed a cross appeal as against the decree in favour of the 6^th respondent. The cross appeal filed by the appellant, was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents 1 & 2 was partly allowed holding that the 1^st & the 6^th respondents alone are entitled for the death cum retirement benefits of the deceased Dhandapani.

4. He would submit that the first Appellate Court had grossly erred in rejecting the service records of the deceased Dhandapani in that regard. The first Appellate Court had also held that there was a valid marriage of the first respondent with the deceased Dhandapani to overthrow the claim of the appellant and also dis-regarded the oral and documentary evidence of respondents 3 to 5, which categorically substantiates the claim of the appellant. He would further submit that the 6^th respondent would not be entitled for the death cum retirement benefits of the deceased Dhandapani, since as on the date, the second plaintiff even according to the plaint, was aged 32 years and had been married. Therefore, he seeks interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that as per the records