JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff’s second appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Shim la in Civil Appeal No.257-S/13 of 1988. By means of this judgment, the judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Rampur in suit No.8-1 of 1986 dated 30-8-1988, has been upheld. The parties are being referred to as Plaintiff’ and Defendants herein this judgment. 2. In the suit filed, Shiv Dayal was arrayed as defendant No.2, who was exparte in the trial court, though he appeared as PW-4 in support of plaintiffs case and remained as such before the lower appellate court as well as in the present proceedings. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this case arc that the plaintiff claimed herself to be the widow of one Gopi Chand, who was a freedom fighter and had lateron employed in the Police Department of H.P. Said Gopi Chand left for his heavenly abode on 8-2-1985. After the death of Gopi Chand, defendant No. 1 Bhagwan Dassi applied to the Government for the grant of teminal/retiral benefits, this led to filing of the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. 4. According to plaintiff she is the only legally wedded wife of Gopi Chand deceased and Bhagwan Dassi being the wife of Shiv Dayal defendant No.2 has no right to claim any interest in the estate of her deceased husband and thus it was prayed that the said defendant be restrained from claiming herself to the widow of Gopi Chand as well as from claiming the retiral/terminal benefits on account of plaintiffs husband late Gopi Chand. This suit was contested and resisted by defendant No. 1 who questioned the suit on the ground of its maintainability, limitation, cause of action as well as valuation. On merits, it was pleaded by the defendant No. l that she is the wife of deceased Gopi Chand and at the same time she questioned the status of the plaintiff as claimed by the latter as also at the same time she denied her own relationship with defendant No.2, as alleged by the plaintiff. In replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant No. l, all the pleas raised by the said defendant were controverted and the averments made in the plaint were reiterated. 5. In replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant No. l, all the pleas raised by the said defendant were controverted and the averments made in the plaint were reiterated. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable and competent? OPD 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant No. l? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bar for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 6 Whether the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of laters Sh. Gopi Chand? OPP (objected) 7. If Issue No.6 is not proved whether Bhagwan Dassi is legally wedded wife of late Sh Gopi Chand? OPD 8. Relief. 6. Trial Court after recording evidence and after consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties dismissed the suit However, it was held that both Kubja Devi and Bhagwan Dassi were the wives of deceased Gopi hand while recording findings under Issues No 6 and 7. 7. In appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree preferred by the plaintiff, the trial court decree, was upheld which is questioned in the present appeal by the plaintiff While dismissing the appeal, first appellate court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Gopi Chand, whereas there is ample evidence on record to conclude that it was Bhagwan Dassi who was living with Gopi Chand and was treated as his wife and accordingly recorded as such in the police department. On this basis the appeal came to be dismissed. 8. As a result of the aforesaid decision of the appellate court below, the findings recorded by the trial court to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are both widows of late Gopi Chand are modified, inasmuch as the claim of the plaintiff stands negatived. 9. On this basis the appeal came to be dismissed. 8. As a result of the aforesaid decision of the appellate court below, the findings recorded by the trial court to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are both widows of late Gopi Chand are modified, inasmuch as the claim of the plaintiff stands negatived. 9. Shri R.S. Jamalta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts below have fallen into error while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff, according to him even if defendant No. l is held to be wife of deceased Gopi Chand, still her claim having not been settled during the life time of the deceased Gopi Chand in proceedings under Section 488 Cr. P.C. when she was allowed separate land etc. both the deceased as well as defendant No. l had severed and terminated the relationship of husband and wife, as such the finding recorded to the contrary holding defendant No. l to be the widow of deceased Gopi Chand cannot be sustained. In support of his other plea that Bhagwan Dass defendant No. l is the wife of Shiv Dayal defendant No. 1. A detailed reference was made by Sh. R.S. Jamalta to the evidence of this defendant who had appeared as PW-4. In this context, it may be appropriate to mention that Shiv Dayal and Gopi Chand were real brothers whereas Kubja Devi and Bhagwan Dassi are real sisters. 10. So far as the findings regarding the status of defendant No. 1 being the legitimate wife of late Gopi Chand having been treated as such is concerned, it is a finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on consideration of evidence produced by the parties in the trial court. In addition to this, there is evidence from contemporaneous official record to show that Bhagwan Dassi is recorded as wife of Gopi Chand and in this behalf reference can be made to the statement of DW-1 Laxmi Nand as well as letter Ex.DW-1/A from the Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. Besides this, there is even otherwise enough evidence to show that throughout Bhagwan Dassi has been accepted to be the wife of deceased Gopi Chand. 11. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1, Shri Bhupender Gupta, besides referring to evidence drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. Besides this, there is even otherwise enough evidence to show that throughout Bhagwan Dassi has been accepted to be the wife of deceased Gopi Chand. 11. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1, Shri Bhupender Gupta, besides referring to evidence drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. D- 2 order dated 4-4-1967 in proceedings under Section 488 Cr. P.C. initiated by defendant No. 1 before the S.D.M. against late Gopi Chand her husband. As per this order, Bhagwan Dassi who has been stated to be the joint wife of defendant No.2 Shiv Dayal and Gopi Chand was allowed land measuring 7-14 bighas and 7-8 bighas as detailed in the agreement. Plaintiff in this case does not admit and has also not pleaded that defendant No. l is a co-widow with her of late Gopi Chand. On the other hand her case is that she is the exclusive widow being the legally wedded wife of deceased Gopi Chand. 12. On the basis of the evidence on record which has been properly appreciated by both the courts below and to avoid repetition evidence is not being discussed in detail, it cannot be said that this is a case of either mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Besides this, nothing could be pointed out by Shri R.S. Jamalta to persuade this court to take a different view from the one taken by the first appellate court while non suiting the plaintiff. Needless to point out that while erroneous findings of fact do not call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 100 C.P.C. however, in a given case where either the material evidence has not been considered at all or has been mis- construed, therefore this court is not powerless to examine the matter afresh while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC. However, fact remains that no such ground has been made out by the plaintiff in the present appeal. 13. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the parties.