R. Lathiba @ Deepa vs R. Amutha

R. Mala, J.—The Plaintiffs/Appellants, who lost the legal battle in both the Courts below, have come forward with this Second Appeal stating that she is the legally wedded wife of Mr. Ramachandran, who died on 12.02.2000 in road accident. The First Respondent has claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Ramachandran and she filed O.S. No.41 of 2006 to declare that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Ramachandran and to direct the 5th Respondent to disburse all the terminal benefits arising out of the demise of deceased Ramachandran. The said Suit was decreed. Even though, she filed an Application in I.A. No. 22 of 2007 to implead herself as a party to the proceedings, the same was dismissed and hence, she filed the Suit in O.S. No 69 of 2010, to declare that the Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.2009 made in O.S. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, is null and void and not binding the Plaintiff and also, to direct the Fifth Respondent to disburse the retiral benefits to the Plaintiff, the Appellants herein.

The Respondents herein have raised the defence stating that the First Respondent is the legally wedded wife and the First Appellant is a muslim and there is no marriage between the First Plaintiff and Ramachandran and to avoid unnecessary dragging on the proceedings, she has ended in Compromise in M.C.O.P No. 177 of 2000. However, there is no document to show that the First Plaintiff and her children are the Legal Representatives and their names have been nominated in the official records. Only the First Respondent and her children have been nominated. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

The Fifth Respondent has also filed a detailed Written Statement stating that the deceased Ramachandran died on 12.02.2000 and in all the official records, he nominated her wife Amutha and her children viz., R1 to R4 as Legal Representatives.

The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, viz., Plaint. Written Statement, framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Suit, stating that the marriage has not been proved. Against, which, the Plaintiff have preferred an Appeal and the same was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, stating that the First Plaintiff, having knowledge about the filing of the Suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2006, filed an Application to implead herself as a party to the proceedings and even though, it was dismissed, she has not challenged that Order Hence, she has filed the present Second Appeal.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the arguments and also perusal of the typed set of papers, this Court finds that the question as to whether the First Appellant is the wife of deceased Ramachandran is not a question of law and it is a question of fact. Both the Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence and come to the correct conclusion and dismissed the Suit filed by the First Plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that no Substantial Question of Law arises in this Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.