JUDGMENT

The Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and in A.S.No.5 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2.The appellant herein as plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court as against the respondents for the relief of declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is the legal heir of her husband late.Subramani and for the consequential injunction not to disburse the pension benefits, D.C.R.G and other benefits to any person by the defendants 3 to 5 except the plaintiff and for costs.

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

4.The case of the plaintiff is that the marriage between herself and late.Subramani was held on 17.05.1961 at Kodaikanal, Subramaniar Kovil, as per the Hindu rites and customs. On 27.07.1962, a male child was born and they were residing at Anandhagiri 2nd street at Kodaikanal and the child died on 18.08.1965. Since the husband of the plaintiff was working as a Watchman at the Highways Department for 20 days in one month, he went to Moolaiyar and he resides there. Due to his ill health, while in service, the plaintiff's husband died on 11.10.1999. After his death, the funeral was conducted by the plaintiff by printing cards on 26.10.1999, since there were no legal heirs except the plaintiff. But immediately after the death of the plaintiff's husband, the defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they were the legal heirs of the deceased Subramani by creating forged documents and trying to get death benefits from the defendants 3 to 5. Hence, on 14.10.1999, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants 3 and 4 and a reply was also given by the defendants 3 and 4. Since the defendants 1 and 2 by creating forged documents are trying to get the death benefits of the late.Subramani, the plaintiff has filed the said suit for the abovestated relief.

5.The defendants 1 and 2 had filed a written statement stating that the alleged marriage was not held between the plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant and likewise, no male child was born and died. To the late.Subramani, except the defendants 1 and 2, there were no other legal heirs. After the death of her husband, the second defendant, conducted funeral expenses by printing cards and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was disbursed by the Highways Department for funeral expenses to them. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.95,000/- was received by the first defendant. The Tahsildar of Kodaikanal issued a legal heir certificate stating that the defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late.Subramani. Since the Highways Department recognised the defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs of late.Subramani, the third defendant had passed an order for disbursing G.P.F, S.P.F, D.C.R.G and N.B.F. On 07.04.1996, at Kodaikanal Kurinchi Andavar Kovil, the marriage was held between late.Subramani and the first defendant. Due the the marriage, on 07.05.1969, the second defendant Murugan alias Ravi was born. In the School records, it is mentioned that R.Subramani is the father of the second defendant and they were residing at Mooalaiyar. The said late.Subramani in his service register mentioned the defendants 1 and 2 as his nominees. After the marriage, late.Subramani with his family resided in a quarters which belongs to the Highways Department at Mayladumparai and thereafter, till the death of late.Subramani, resided in the Inspection bungalow belonging to the Highways Department at Moolariyar. There is no husband and wife relationship between the plaintiff and late.Subramani. The plaintiff already married one Rajamanickam and they had a daughter by name Vanasundari. In the voter's list and ration card, the plaintiff's name was shown as the wife of Rajamanickam and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6.The defendants 3 to 5 had filed a written statement stating that there w