THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.2884 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellants and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed S.O.P.No.616 of 1997 in the District Court, Vizianagaram against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for grant of succession certificate in respect of the service benefits of late Venkata Rao, who was employed in the A.P.S.R.T.C. It was pleaded that appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the children of late Venkata Rao. Their grievance was that the first respondent styled herself as the wife of late Venkata Rao and respondent Nos.2 to 4 as their children, though appellant No.1 alone was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The S.O.P. was opposed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. According to them, Venkata Rao married respondent No.1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are their children. Through its order, dated 21.08.2000, the trial Court dismissed the S.O.P. Hence, this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act. Heard Sri V.Jithender Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Koka Raghava Rao, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Appellant No.1 on the one hand, and respondent No.1 on the other, pleaded that they were married to late Venkata Rao. Both of them claim to have begotten children through him. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the five petitioners, or any of them are entitled to succession certificate, in respect of the O.P. scheduled monies, or any part, or parts thereof, as claimed, and if so, the particulars thereof? (2) Whether the respondents, or any of them are entitled for succession certificate in respect of the O.P. scheduled monies, or any part, or parts, thereof, and if so, the particulars thereof? On behalf of the appellants and respondent Nos.5 to 7, P.Ws.1 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were filed. Exs.X1 to X6 were also taken into account. They comprise of the transfer certificates of appellant No.2 and respondent Nos.5 to 7 and certain photographs. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were filed. The trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that appellant No.1 failed to prove her marriage with the deceased. Neither any wedding card was filed nor any persons, who were said to have witnessed the marriage, were examined. The analysis of the evidence by the trial Court was so perfect that though the marriage between appellant No.1 and the deceased was held not proved, a finding was recorded to the effect that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are their children. Following the law of succession as laid down by the Supreme Court, it was held that even as illegitimate children, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are entitled to a share. The birth of appellant No.2 to appellant No.1 was said to be prior to the acquaintance of appellant No.1 with the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants is not able to convince this Court to take any different view. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.08.2009 kdl