Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents of both the cases. 2. Both the Second Appeals have been filed against the same judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate court and the parties are also common in both the Second Appeals. S.A. No. 349/ 2000 has been filed by defendant no. 1, who happens to be mother of deceased Deepak Kumar Yadav, whereas, S.A. No. 336/2000 has been filed by defendants no. 2 to 5, who happen to be the Union of India and the Railway authorities. Hence both the said Second Appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Title Suit No. 33 of 1995 was filed by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 against appellants of both the appeals, for a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of late Deepak Kumar Yadav and also for a decree for Rs. 20,000/- and other benefits. The claim of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was that she was married to Deepak Kumar Yadav on 18.9.1981 and he died on 9.11.1987, whereafter the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was granted succession certificate, but the authorities, namely, defendants no. 2 to 5 (appellants in S.A. No. 336/2000) rejected her claim with respect to the property of her husband and allowed the claim of defendant no. 1 (appellant in S.A. No. 349/2000), who was the mother of the deceased. The said suit was dismissed by the learned 1st Munsif, Munger by judgment and decree dated 16.1.1988, against which Title Appeal No. 5 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff, which was allowed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Munger, by his judgment and decree dated 14.6.2000, which are under challenge in both the instant Second Appeals, filed by two separate sets of defendants mentioned above. 4. The dispute, in reality, is between defendant no. 1, the mother of the deceased and the plaintiff, claiming to be the widow of the deceased Deepak Kumar Yadav, and the main question in issue is as to whether plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was widow of late Deepak Kumar Yadav, the son of defendant no. 1 (appellant in S.A. No. 349/2000). Learned trial court has dismissed the suit on the basis of documents and papers submitted before the Railway authorities, in which the name of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was widow of late Deepak Kumar Yadav, the son of defendant no. 1 (appellant in S.A. No. 349/2000). Learned trial court has dismissed the suit on the basis of documents and papers submitted before the Railway authorities, in which the name of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was not mentioned but the said factor cannot legally decide the issue as admittedly the dispute between the parties continued for years and hence obviously in the official papers, the name of the plaintiff could not be found. Apart from that, Ext. 2 is the certificate of Mukhiya, Ext. 6 is the voter list and Ext. 9 is the case filed by defendant no. 1-appellant against the rela- tives of the plaintiff with regard to kidnapping, which clearly shows that plaintiffrespondent no. 1 was the wife of deceased Deepak Kumar. Furthermore, Ext. 13 is the first information report, wherein the defendant no. 1-appellant herself admitted the marriage of her son with the plaintiff mentioning her as the daughter of a person, who was admittedly plaintiffs father. 5. Learned lower appellate court has considered the entire matter in detail and has come to aconclusion that the materials on record fully established the factum of marriage. With respect to performance of marriage, it has been specifically held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar vs. S. Michael & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 933, following the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Mouji Lal and Others vs. Musammat Chandrabati Kumari & Another, reported in 1911 (38) Indian Appeals 122, that if the factum of marriage was established the performance of ceremonies of marriage has to be presumed, as symbolic rituals have no bearing upon the reality of the situation. Even the evidence of defendant no. 1 proved that there was a Bidagiri ceremony and there was also a Panchayati on 2.11.1987. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court nor do I find any substantial question of law involved in any of the two second appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.