Judgment This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment in A.S.No.148/2005 dated 28. 2006 reversing Judgment of the trial Court and holding that Defendants 3 and 4 are also legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram along with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs who are daughters of deceased Balasundaram through his first wife Malliga are the Appellants. 2. Being aggrieved by findings of lower Appellate Court that 1st Defendant Valarmathi is not legally wedded wife of deceased Balasundaram, Defendants have preferred Cross- Objection. Since both Appeal and Cross-Objection arise out of same Judgment involving common points, both Second Appeal and Cross-Objection were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suit. 3. Plaintiffs and Defendants are related to deceased Balasundaram as under:- Balasundaram[Died] [Died on 011. 2002] =Malliga [Died on 09.07.1986] = Valarmathi [D1] 1st Wife 2nd Wife | | | | | | | Prema Revathy Deepa Minor Minor [P1] [P2] [D2] Prakash Prasanth [D3] [D4] Case of Plaintiffs is that Balasundaram married Malliga on 9. 1977 and out of lawful wedlock, Plaintiffs were born. Malliga died in 1986 and after death of Malliga, Plaintiffs are under care and custody of their father who was employed in Police Department. Due to ill-health, Balasundaram died in Sathyamangalam while he was in service on 011. 2002. According to Plaintiffs, excepting Plaintiffs there are no legal heirs for deceased Balasundaram and Plaintiffs are entitled for benefits such as Pension and DCRG as legal heirs of Balasundaram. Plaintiffs further averred that deceased Balasundaram never married 1st Defendant and they never lived together as husband and wife and 1st Defendant can never become legally wedded wife of Balasundaram and therefore, Plaintiffs filed suit declaring them as legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram and that they are entitled to receive all the benefits of their father. 4. Resisting the suit, Defendants have filed written statement contending that Balasundaram married 1st Defendant in Vinayagar temple in Sannadhi street, Tiruvannamalai town as per Hindu rites on 04.02.1990 and ever since marriage, 1st Defendant and Balasundaram lived as husband and wife. Out of lawful wedlock, 3rd Defendant [Minor Prakash] was born on 010. 1991 and 4th Defendant [Minor Prasanth] was born on 02.05.1993. According to Defendants, both Plaintiffs and Defendants and Balasundaram lived as one family in Sathyamangalam village, Gingee Taluk until death of Balasundaram. Out of lawful wedlock, 3rd Defendant [Minor Prakash] was born on 010. 1991 and 4th Defendant [Minor Prasanth] was born on 02.05.1993. According to Defendants, both Plaintiffs and Defendants and Balasundaram lived as one family in Sathyamangalam village, Gingee Taluk until death of Balasundaram. Plaintiffs and Defendants were under care of Balasundaram which is known to everyone in the village. Defendants further averred that due to ill advice of their maternal-uncle, with a view to prevent Defendants from claiming DCRG and other benefits, Plaintiffs have filed the suit and are not entitled to the relief of declaration prayed by them. 5. On the above pleadings, six Issues and three additional Issues were framed which were later recast as five Issues. On the side of Plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of Defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B43 were marked. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that 1st Defendant failed to prove that she had married deceased Balasundaram on 04.02.1990 and that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Balasundaram. On Issue No.2, trial Court held that even though in Ex.B24 – Service Register, Defendants 3 and 4 were shown to be sons, since marriage between Malliga - mother of Plaintiffs and deceased Balasundaram was then subsisting, marriage between deceased Balasundaram and 1st Defendant was not a valid marriage and held that Defendants 3 and 4 are not legitimate sons of deceased Balasundaram. Holding that Plaintiffs alone are legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram and are entitled to receive family pension and DCRG, trial Court decreed Plaintiffs suit. 7. Being aggrieved by decreeing of suit, Defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.148/2005. In the lower Appellate Court, application under Or.41, Rule 27 CPC was filed [I.A.No.67/2006] and Exs.B44 to B46 were received as additional evidence. Lower Appellate Court held that even though in Voters list [Ex.B20] and Family card [Ex.B19], 1st Defendant was shown as wife of Balasundaram, it was not sufficient to prove valid marriage of 1st Defendant with Balasundaram. Lower Appellate Court also held that 1st Defendant was not proved to be a legally wedded wife. Lower Appellate Court held that even though in Voters list [Ex.B20] and Family card [Ex.B19], 1st Defendant was shown as wife of Balasundaram, it was not sufficient to prove valid marriage of 1st Defendant with Balasundaram. Lower Appellate Court also held that 1st Defendant was not proved to be a legally wedded wife. Placing reliance upon Exs.B45 and B46 – School certificates of Defendants 3 and 4 where fathers name is stated as Balasundaram, lower Appellate Court declared Defendants 3 and 4 being legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram along with Plaintiffs. In so far as, defence plea of adoption of 2nd Defendant Deepa, lower Appellate Court negatived the same. 8. Challenging the Judgment of lower Appellate Court, Plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal. Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in admitting the Exhibits B44, 45 and 46 and partly allowing the appeal on that basis? 2. Whether Exhibits B44, 45 and 46 are admissible in evidence in the absence of proof by the author of those documents? 3. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in appreciating Exhibits B44, 45 and 46 without giving an opportunity for other side to cross examine those documents about genuineness? 4. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal in part on the basis of Exhibits B44, 45 and 46 as a proof of paternity of respondent 1 and 2? 9. Mr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for Appellants submitted that when the lower Appellate Court received additional evidence Exs.B44 to B46, no opportunity was given to Appellants-Plaintiffs to explain those documents. It was further submitted that lower Appellate Court did not keep in view that no evidence was adduced to substantiate the contents in Exs.B44 to B46 and while so, lower Appellate Court erred in placing reliance upon those additional documentary evidence adduced. It was further argued that in the absence of proof of those documents, lower Appellate Court erred in admitting the documents and also erred in finding Defendants 3 and 4 as legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram. 10. It was further argued that in the absence of proof of those documents, lower Appellate Court erred in admitting the documents and also erred in finding Defendants 3 and 4 as legal heirs of deceased Balasundaram. 10. Laying emphasis upon Exs.B44 to B46, Mr.R.Sunilkumar, learned counsel for Respondents-Defendants submitted that based upon Exs.B45 and 46 and other overwhelming documentary evidence and by virtue of Sec.16 of Hindu Marriage Act, lower Appellate Court rightly held that Defendants 3 and 4 are sons of deceased Balasundaram and are entitled to DCRG and other pensionary benefits. 11. Insofar as, Cross Objection, learned counsel for Defendants submitted that Defendants adduced overwhelming documentary evidence to show that 1st Defendant was legally wedded wife of deceased Balasundaram and while so, Courts below erred in ignoring those documentary evidence and saying that marriage was not proved. Drawing Courts attention to Ex.B19 – Family card, Ex.B20 – Voters list and other letters received and Ex.B24 – Service Register where 1st Defendant has been stated as nominee of deceased Balasundaram. Learned counsel for Defendants submitted that number of documents filed would convincingly show that 1st Defendant was the wife of deceased Balasundaram and Courts below committed serious error in ignoring documentary evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Defendants placed reliance upon (2009) 9 SCC 299 [Challamma v. Tilaga and others]; (2008) 2 SCC 238 [Vidhyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and others]; (2008) 4 SCC 520 [Tulsa and others v. Durghatiya and others]; (2005) 2 SCC 244 [Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and others] and AIR 2001 AP 104 [G.Nirmalamma and others v. G.Seethapathi and others]. 12. Insofar as, 2nd Defendant – Deepa who is the daughter of 1st Defendant born through her first husband – Manoharan, Defendants raised plea that deceased Balasundaram adopted 2nd Defendant – Deepa, Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that adoption of Deepa [2nd Defendant] by deceased Balasundaram was not proved. As far as 2nd Defendant, concurrent findings is based on materials and evidence on record and the same is to be confirmed. .13. Ex.A3 [02.09.1977] is the marriage invitation of Plaintiffs mother Malliga with deceased Balasundaram. Trial Court adopted wrong approach by wrongly observing that first husband of 1st Defendant died on 15.04.2004 which is contrary to the fact and documentary evidence viz., Ex.B12. .13. Ex.A3 [02.09.1977] is the marriage invitation of Plaintiffs mother Malliga with deceased Balasundaram. Trial Court adopted wrong approach by wrongly observing that first husband of 1st Defendant died on 15.04.2004 which is contrary to the fact and documentary evidence viz., Ex.B12. Trial Court also erred in presuming that Malliga, first wife of Balasundaram was alive till 1995 which is contrary to the documentary evidence. Exs.A4 and A5 are Transfer Certificates of Plaintiffs. In her evidence 1st Plaintiff/PW1 has stated that her mother Malliga died in 1995. Based upon Exs.A3 to A5 and oral evidence of PW1, trial Court held that first wife of Balasundaram viz., Malliga was alive till 1995 and when first marriage was subsisting, marriage of 1st Defendant with deceased Balasundaram is not a valid one. In the trial Court, death certifiate of Malliga was not produced. Ex.B44 – death certificate of Malliga was produced in lower Appellate Court. From Ex.B44, it is seen that Malliga died on 09.07.1986. Since Malliga died on 09.07.1986, trial Court was not right in placing reliance upon oral evidence of PW1 in saying that Malliga died in 1995. Trial Court erred in finding that marriage between Malliga and deceased Balasundaram was subsisting and therefore, marriage of 1st Defendant with deceased Balasundaram was not a valid marriage. 14. To appreciate the contentious points raised, certain dates are relevant:- Date of death of 1st Defendants husband .... 14.04.1988 [Ex.B12] Date of marriage between 1st Defendant and Balasundaram .... 04.02.1990 Date of death of Malliga .... 09.07.1986 [Ex.B44] Date of birth of Easwaran @ Prakash [D3] .... 010. 1991 [Ex.B45] Date of birth of Prasanth [D4] .... 02.05.1993 [Ex.B46] Date of death of Balasundaram .... 011. 2002[Ex.B26] 15. First Defendant examined herself as DW1 has stated that marriage between herself and deceased Balasundaram was solemnized in Vinayagar Temple, Sannathi street, Tiruvannamalai on 04.02.1990. Admittedly, marriage between 1st Defendant and deceased Balasundaram was not registered.As pointed out earlier, marriage between 1st Defendant and Balasundaram was solemnized on 04.02.1990. When marriage between 1st Defendant and Balasundaram was solemnized, 1st Defendant was a widow and Balasundaram lost his first wife Malliga and a widower. Hence, there was no legal impediment for solemnization of marriage between 1st Defendant and deceased Balasundaram. 16. Apart from oral evidence to show that 1st Defendant was legally wedded wife of Balasundaram, Defendants have marked number of documentary evidence. Hence, there was no legal impediment for solemnization of marriage between 1st Defendant and deceased Balasundaram. 16. Apart from oral evidence to show that 1st Defendant was legally wedded wife of Balasundaram, Defendants have marked number of documentary evidence. In her evidence, DW1 has stated that they have been living as husband and wife in Angarayanallur village till 04.02.1991 and thereafter living in Sathyamangalam, Gingee Taluk. In her evidence, DW1 [1st Defendant] has stated .Language .17. Plaintiffs, deceased Balasundaram and Defendants were living in one house. That all of them living as one family is clear from Exs.B19. Ex.B19 is the Family Card for the year 1998-2003 where members of family has been stated as (i) Balasundaram; (ii) Valarmathi; (iii) Deepa; (iv) Prema; (v) Revathi; (vi) Prakash and (vii) Prasanth. Ex.B20 is the Voters list for the year 1998 of 53-Melmalayanur which contains Sl.No.943 Balasundaram, son of Appadurai and Sl.No.944 Malar [1st Defendant] wife of Balasundaram. During 1999, Balasundaram was working in Gemini Complex in Chennai as Assistant Security Officer. Ex.B22 [12. 1999] letter was written by Balasundaram from Chennai to the 1st Defendant, strengthens defence version that 1st Defendant is the legally wedded wife of Balasundaram. Ex.B24 is the Service Register in which 1st Defendant has been shown as wife of Balasundaram and as nominee. In Ex.B24 Service Register name of nominee has been stated as:- ."B.Valarmathi, W/o.A.Balasundaram, N.Pulamedu & B.O. Chidambaram T.K. Cuddalore Dt." In case of nominee pre-deceasing the Officer, first Plaintiffs name Prema has been shown as nominee. In Ex.B24 – Service Register, the amount to be shared between nominee has been stated as 50% each. .18. Exs.B37 and B39 are photographs taken at the time of death of Balasundaram. In Ex.B37 photograph, 1st Defendant is standing near the dead body along with Defendants 3 and 4. In his evidence DW2 [Arumuga Mudaliar] father of 1st Defendant has stated that Ex.B43 is the marriage invitation of one Mahalakshmi, younger sister of 1st Defendant. In Ex.B43 name of Balasundaram has been shown as @bgz; tPl;lhh;@/ 19. Exs.B13 to B17 are letters written by one Dhanalakshmi and Selvakumar enquiring about 1st Defendant – Malar @ Valarmathi and their two sons – Defendants 3 and 4. Exs.B45 and B46 are the School Certificates of Defendants 3 and 4 in which date of birth of Defendants 3 and 4 has been stated as "010. 1991" and "02.05.1993" respectively. Exs.B13 to B17 are letters written by one Dhanalakshmi and Selvakumar enquiring about 1st Defendant – Malar @ Valarmathi and their two sons – Defendants 3 and 4. Exs.B45 and B46 are the School Certificates of Defendants 3 and 4 in which date of birth of Defendants 3 and 4 has been stated as "010. 1991" and "02.05.1993" respectively. In Exs.B45 and B46 name of father is stated Balasundaram and deceased Balasundaram has also signed as father of Defendants 3 and 4. Exs.B45 and 46 – School Certificates are strong piece of evidence substantiating defence plea of valid marriage between 1st Defendant and Balasundaram and that Defendants 3 and 4 were born out of lawful wedlock. 20. Based on Petition filed by the Defendants in I.A.No.530/2004, records pertaining to application filed by first Plaintiff before Taluk Office seeking Legal Heir certificate on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.Mu.No.12357/2002 was produced before the Court. In the said Proceedings, first Plaintiff had given statement [Ex.B1] to the Revenue Inspector, Sathyamangalam, Gingee Taluk categorically stating that 1st Defendant as second wife of Balasundaram and Defendants 3 and 4 were referred as sons of 1st Defendant and Balasundaram. Further in Ex.B1, first Plaintiff has stated that her father Balasundaram had married 1st Defendant after death of her mother Malliga. Ex.B1 shown to first Plaintiff during her cross examination on 6. 2004 and first Plaintiff had admitted her signature in Ex.B1. Courts below erred in ignoring valuable evidence – Ex.B1 statement by first Plaintiff to revenue authorities. Having regard to the earlier statement – Ex.B1, Plaintiffs are estopped to contend contrary to their earlier statement. .21. Defendants have adduced overwhelming evidence showing that 1st Defendant is the legally wedded wife of Balasundaram and both of them lived as husband and wife. In view of the fact of long cohabitation of Balasundaram and 1st Defendant as husband and wife and the oral evidence of Defendants about the marriage tied with other documentary evidences viz., Service Register in which deceased Balasundaram himself had shown 1st Defendant as his married wife, Courts below ought to have held that marriage between Balasundarma and 1st Defendant is proved and they are husband and wife. Oral and documentary evidence would also show that 1st Defendant has been treated as wife of deceased Balasundaram. Oral and documentary evidence would also show that 1st Defendant has been treated as wife of deceased Balasundaram. While so, Courts below erred in ignoring the material evidence and in insisting upon proof of certain ceremonies for solemnization of marriage. In my considered view, Courts below erred in ignoring weight of evidence. 22. In determining question of valid marriage, conduct of deceased would be relevant. As pointed out earlier, deceased Balasundaram had married the 1st Defendant. It is well settled that long cohabitation and acceptance of society of a man and women as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage. Holding that presumption of valid marriage though is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to prove that no marriage has taken place, in (2009) 9 SCC 299 [Challamma v. Tilaga and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "11. In Tulsa v. Durghatiya [ (2008) 4 SCC 520 this Court held; "11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case. 12. A number of judicial pronouncements have been made on this aspect of the matter. The Privy Council, on two occasions, considered the scope of the presumption thatcould be drawn as to the relationship of marriage between two persons living together. In first of them i.e. Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy [AIR 1927 PC 185] Their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down the general proposition that: ..... where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. 13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. 13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan [(1928-29) 56 IA 201 ; AIR 1929 PC 135] Their Lordships of the Privy Council once again laid down that: The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. 14. It was held that such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act." 12. It is also well settled that a presumption of a valid marriage although is a rebuttable one, it is for the other party to establish the same [See Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Moli v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni (1996) 7 SCC 681 and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v Setti Gangadhara Swamy (2005) 2 SCC 244 ]. Such a presumption can be validly raised having regard to Section 50 of the Evidence Act. [See Tulsa (2008) 4 SCC 520 ]. A heavy burden, thus, lies on the person who seeks to prove that no marriage has taken place." 23. That there was a valid marriage between 1st Defendant and Balasundaram has been strengthened by the presumption available in law arising out of long cohabitation of 1st Defendant and deceased Balasundaram. As discussed earlier, 1st Defendant and Balasundaram lived as husband and wife and were treated as such by all concerned in the society. Long cohabitation and living together raises a strong presumption of marriage which gets strengthened by birth of Defendants 3 and 4. 1st Defendant being lawful wife of Balasundaram is also entitled to be declared as legal heir of deceased Balasundaram. 24. The Privy Council in Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan [AIR 1929 PC 135] held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabitated continuously for a number of years. In Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumari [ AIR 1952 SC 231 ], Supreme Court held that continuous cohabitation of a man and a woman raises the presumption of marriage. Ibrahim Khan [AIR 1929 PC 135] held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabitated continuously for a number of years. In Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumari [ AIR 1952 SC 231 ], Supreme Court held that continuous cohabitation of a man and a woman raises the presumption of marriage. But the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. The arising of a presumption, though rebuttable, has also been noticed by the Supreme Court in S.P.S.Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan (1994) 1 SCC 460 . In this case oral evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. 25. If a finding of fact is arrived at ignoring important relevant evidence, the finding is one bad in law. Ignoring some of the documents which were vitally for deciding the question would vitiate concurrent finding [See AIR 1994 SC 532 (Sundara Naicker Vadiyar (died) and another v. Ramasami Ayyar (died) and others]. Where finding of fact are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by essentially erroneous approach by Courts below, High Court is not precluded from interfering with the findings of fact. 26. If the findings of the Subordinate Courts on facts are contrary to evidence on record and are perverse, such finding can be set aside by High Court in appeal under Sec.100 C.P.C. High Court cannot shut its eyes to perverse findings of the Courts below [See 2003 (2) CTC 635 (Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others]. 27. Courts below had not considered number of documents produced by Defendants in a proper perspective and the effect of those documents on the status of 1st Defendant. Since proper construction of documents and inferences have not legally been drawn by the Courts below, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., High Court has to necessarily interfere with the findings of Courts below. 28. As pointed out earlier in the Service Register [Ex.B24] of Balasundaram, 1st Defendant has been nominated as nominee to receive DCRG. The effect of nomination only indicates the hand which was authorised to receive the amount. In (2006) 6 SCC 724 [Vishin N.Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani], the Supreme Court laid down the following terms: "10. .... 28. As pointed out earlier in the Service Register [Ex.B24] of Balasundaram, 1st Defendant has been nominated as nominee to receive DCRG. The effect of nomination only indicates the hand which was authorised to receive the amount. In (2006) 6 SCC 724 [Vishin N.Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani], the Supreme Court laid down the following terms: "10. .... The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorised to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The policy-holder continued to have an interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquired no sort of interest in the policy during the life time of the policy-holder. On the death of the policy-holder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the law intestate. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the policy could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them." Though 1st Defendant was appointed as nominee she was authorised to receive DCRG. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants 1,3 and 4 are equally entitled to receive DCRG amount and each of them would be entitled to 1/5th share in the DCRG amount. 29. As per Rule 49 (6) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 family pension payable to unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married whichever is earlier. At the time of filing of suit in 2003, 1st Plaintiff Prema was aged 22 years and 2nd Plaintiff Revathi was aged 20 years. By now both Plaintiffs have attained the age of 25 years. As per Rule 49 (6) (i) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in case of a widow, family pension is payable up to the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier. As per Rule 49 (6) (i) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, 1st Defendant being a widow of deceased Balasundaram, family pension is payable to 1st Defendant till her life time. Plaintiffs are entitled to DCRG only 2/5 [1/5 plus 1/5] i.e. 40%. 30. As per Rule 49 (6) (i) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, 1st Defendant being a widow of deceased Balasundaram, family pension is payable to 1st Defendant till her life time. Plaintiffs are entitled to DCRG only 2/5 [1/5 plus 1/5] i.e. 40%. 30. It was stated that 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs have received 50% of DCRG amount and also were getting pension till they attained age of 25 years. Even though, Plaintiffs were paid 50% DCRG, having regard to the relationship of parties, excess of 10% DCRG paid to them and pension amount paid to them so far may not be recovered. Defendants are entitled to receive balance 50% DCRG. 31. Findings of Courts below as to marital status of 1st Defendant is misreading of evidence and non-application of law and therefore Cross Objection filed by 1st Defendant is to be allowed. Findings of lower Appellate Court that Defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to receive DCRG and other benefits of deceased Balasundaram along with Plaintiffs is confirmed and the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 32. In the result, findings of Courts below in A.S.No.148/2005 dated 25.08.2006 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gingee arising out of Judgment in O.S.No.68/2003 dated 15.09.2005 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Gingee as far as marital status of 1st Defendant is set aside and the Cross Objection is allowed. The 1st Defendant is also declared as legal heir of deceased Balasundaram along with Plaintiffs [Prema and Revathi] and Defendants 3 and 4 [Prakash and Prasanth]. Findings of lower Appellate Court that Defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to receive DCRG is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs. 50% of DCRG is payable to 1st Defendant [Valarmathi], Defendants 3 and 4 [Prakash and Prasanth] within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. So far as pension, as per Rule 49 (6) (i) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 pension is payable to 1st Defendant from the date when pension paid to Plaintiffs was stopped. Arrears of pension payable to the 1st Defendant shall be paid to her within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. Plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5th share of DCRG i.e. 40%. Plaintiffs are said to have been paid 50% of DCRG amount. Arrears of pension payable to the 1st Defendant shall be paid to her within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. Plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5th share of DCRG i.e. 40%. Plaintiffs are said to have been paid 50% of DCRG amount. Having regard to the relationship of parties, excess 10% of DCRG paid to the Plaintiffs and pension amount so far paid may not be recovered. Defendants are entitled to receive balance DCRG amount.