JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. Suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the successors of late Damodar Patra and for injunction against defendant No. 1 seeking to restrain her from availing the service benefits of late Damodar Patra. It is not disputed that plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of Damodar Patra, whereas plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of Damodar Patra through his first wife. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the present appellant is no way connected with the family and was not the wife of late Damodar Patra. 2. The present appellant filed written statement claiming that after the death of first wife, Damodar had married her. She had also raised the question of maintainability of the suit. 3. The trial Court found that the suit was not maintainable. It also found that the present appellant was not the wife of Damodar Patra. This finding was based only on the ground that though there was some evidence relating to marriage, it had not been proved that the marriage had taken place in accordance with the custom applicable to the parties. In particular, it was observed that in view of the fact that Damodar was a widower, before marrying the appellant, Damodar should have got married to a "Sahada" tree in accordance with the custom. Though the suit was dismissed, the present appellant filed Title Appeal No. 2/41 of 1988/1987 challenging the adverse finding of the trial Court whereby the marriage of the present appellant was negatived. 4. In the present case, there is no specific pleading or material on record to prove that a widower cannot marry for the second time without undertaking the formal marriage with a "Sahada" tree. In the absence of any pleading or proof regarding such custom, it was unnecessary for the Courts below to hold that marriage had not been performed in accordance with customary rites. As such the finding of the Courts below that there was no marriage between the appellant and Damodar cannot be sustained. 5. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1, the mother of late Damodar, has died in the meantime and her name may be expunged as the only legal representative is already on record as respondent No. 2. 5. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1, the mother of late Damodar, has died in the meantime and her name may be expunged as the only legal representative is already on record as respondent No. 2. It has been further submitted that the appellant has no objection if the benefits in the shape of gratuity and other pensionary benefits are made available to respondent No. 2. who is admittedly the daughter of late Damodar Patra. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the present appellant will not claim any pensionary benefits or gratuity otherwise payable to the members of the family of late Damodar Patra and such benefits may be made available to present respondent No. 2. However, he has further submitted that the question of giving any service to the present appellant on compassionate ground as per the relevant circulars/provisions may be considered on the footing that she is the.wife of late Damodar Patra. Such submission being reasonable is accepted. While upholding the status of the appellant as legally married wife, it is made clear that the appellant shall not claim any pensionary benefits, gratuity and other emoluments. However, her application for appointment under any rehabilitation scheme on compassionate ground shall be considered on the footing that she is the widow of the deceased service-holder. 6. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the Second Appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed