THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER: This appeal, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’), is filed against the order and decree dated 25.10.2004 in S.O.P.No.57 of 2001 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appellant filed O.P., under Section 372 of the Act, with a prayer to issue succession certificate in respect of the estate of late Myrala George. She pleaded that the marriage between herself and George took place on 14.11.1966 at Ongole and the fifth respondent was born out of their wedlock. The appellant was initially employed as a nurse and the deceased George as a Travelling Ticket Inspector in the South Central Railways. According to the appellant, both of them settled at Karlapalem Village and George used to visit Vijayawada for his duties. She pleaded that he developed illicit intimacy with the first respondent. Mr. George died on 18.03.1996 and she approached respondent Nos.2 to 4 for availing his service benefits. They are said to have informed that the name of the first respondent is entered as the wife of the deceased employee and that the claim of the appellant cannot be entertained. It was further pleaded that the fifth respondent could not join the appellant in filing the O.P. in view of the fact that she is residing separately at Sri Kalahasti along with her husband. The first respondent filed a counter opposing the claim of the appellant. She pleaded that her marriage with George took place in 1963 and she had one son and two daughters out of wedlock and that all of them have succeeded to his estate, on his death. Reference was also made to the service records in which the name of the first respondent was shown as the wife. The fifth respondent remained ex parte. The trial Court dismissed the O.P. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is voluminous oral and documentary evidence to prove the marriage between the appellant and late George and the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the claim. He submits that comparison of the signature on Ex.B.9 which came into existence 30 years later was totally improper. Learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant failed to prove the marriage, and even Ex.A.1 was found to be not proved. He contends that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had ever lived with late George. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration on the basis of the pleadings: 1. Whether the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Myrala George? 2. Whether the fifth respondent was born to the petitioner through Myrala George? 3. Whether the petitioner and fifth respondent are entitled to the terminal service benefits of the deceased from respondent Nos.2 to 4? On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.29 were marked. An important document relied upon by the appellant to claim that she was married to late George, is Ex.A.1, dated 14.11.1966. The first respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that her marriage with the same individual took place in the year 1963. Heavy burden rested upon the appellant to prove Ex.A.1. She did not file any contemporaneous documents which contain the signature of late George. Since he was an employee in the Railways, there should not have been any difficulty for the appellant to procure one such document. Ex.B.19 is the letter submitted by late George to the railway authorities. That was the only document available on record which contained his signature. Even on a comparison with a naked eye, the trial Court found that the signature on Ex.A.1 does not tally with the one on Ex.B.19. Added to that, several discrepancies as to the issuance of Ex.A.1 were elicited from the witnesses, particularly the authorities of the Church. Another point of weakness in the case of the appellant is that her daughter did not sail with her and she had to be shown as respondent No.5. If respondent No.5 was, in fact, the daughter of late George through the appellant, she would have got substantial benefit from the service benefits. Not only she did not support the case of the appellant, but also had chosen to remain ex parte. The deceased was an employee in the Railways and every personal record of the employee revealed that the first respondent is his wife. The trial Court has arrived at the just proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date.01.07.2011 Usd