1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A.(MD).No.5 of 2011 Leelavathi .. Appellant/Plaintiff .vs. 1.R.Rajaram 2.The Tasildhar, Peraiyur Taluk, Peraiyur, Madurai District. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai – 20. 4.Additional Sub Treasurer Officer, Peraiyur Taluk, Peraiyur, Madurai District. .. Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgement and decree dated 30.03.2010, made in A.S.No.126 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2008 made in O.S.No.576 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam. For Appellant : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan JUDGMENT The submissions made on the side of the appellant have been heard. 2. The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the appellant herein/plaintiff praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the legal representative of late Kandasamy on the premise that she was married as a second wife by the said Kandasamy during the life time of his legally wedded wife, who was none other than the sister of the appellant herein. The said Kandasamy was working as a teacher and he died on 24.01.1982. 3. It is not in dispute, the said Kandasamy married Sengammal on 15.12.1950 and a daughter by name Subbulakshmi was born to her on 21.11.1953. Contending that the said Kandasamy married the appellant/plaintiff on 07.05.1966, admittedly after bigamy has been declared illegal by parliament enactment, the appellant /plaintiff claims to be the sole legal heir of late Kandasamy, since his first wife and the daughter born through first wife died subsequent to the death of the said Kandasamy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Admittedly, late Kandasamy died on 24.01.1982 and his legally wedded wife Sengammal died on 07.06.2007. It is also been admitted by the appellant/ plaintiff in the plaint itself that the said Sengamml was survived by her only daughter Subbulakshmi and she also died on 17.06.2007. Based on the plea of the appellant/plaintiff herself, she would not have become a legal heir of Kandasamy because her alleged marriage with Kandasamy was not legally sustainable one, even if it is assumed to be factually proved. As per her own pleadings, the legally wedded wife of Kandasamy was alive on 07.05.1966, the date of alleged marriage of the appellant/plaintiff with Kandasamy. Such a marriage, if true, would be a void marriage and the appellant/plaintiff would not have acquired the status of wife. The date of death of Kandasamy is furnished as 24.01.1982. Admittedly, his legally wedded wife Sengammal and his daughter Subbulakshmi were alive and they died only in the year 2007, i.e. after a lapse of 25 years from the date of death of Kandasamy. Therefore, Sengammal, the legally wedded wife of Kandasamy and Subbulakshmi, his legitimate daughter alone became the legal heirs of Kandasamy on his death. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that she is a legal heir of Kandasamy deserves rejection at the inception itself. 5. It is true that after the death of Kandasamy, his legally wedded wife Sengammal died on 07.06.2007 and 10 days thereafter, his daughter Subbulakshmi also died. Even on the death of Sengammal, the appellant/ plaintiff being the sister of Sengammal would stand excluded in the presence of Subbulakshmi, daughter of Sengammal. If at all the appellant/plaintiff can have any claim, he may have a claim to be recognised as legal heir of Subbulakshmi, who died on 17.06.2007 as a spinster, not as a Class- I or Class-II heir, but as a collateral distant relative. Therefore, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff that she is one of the legal heirs of late Kandasamy and on the death of his legally wedded wife and the daughter born through the legally wedded wife, the appellant became the sole legal heir of Kandasamy cannot be sustained. The Courts below have correctly applied the legal principles in this case and rendered at a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is not the legal heir of late Kandasamy and hence, she is not entitled to the declaration as prayed for in the plaint. 6. The main object of seeking such a declaration is to claim the family pension of late Kandasamy, who died as a Government employee, namely teacher. As pointed out supra, even if the claim of appellant/ plaintiff that she was married as a second wife by late Kandasamy on 07.05.1966 could be taken to be proved factually, legally her claim to the status of wife of Kandasamy and the legal heir of Kandasamy cannot be sustained. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the judgment of the trial Court in dismissing the suit and in the judgment of the lower appellate Court in confirming the same. No defect or infirmity could be found in the judgment of the Courts below. All the more, no substantial questions of law is proved to have involved in this case. As such, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for interference with the concurrent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 findings of the Courts below and that the appeal is bound to be dismissed, holding that no substantial question of law is involved. 7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs as the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The District Munsif, Tirumangalam. +1cc to Mr.P.T.S.Narendra Vasan, Advocate, Sr.No.1739 Sj ssk/09.02.2011 /4c -3p/- S.A.(MD).No.5 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/