JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. - 1. THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.05.2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba (HP), in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011 (T). 2. 'KEY facts' necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff, namely, Smt. Pesho Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience), filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff, she is a legally wedded wife of late Sh. Prem Lal, son of Shri Rijhu (now deceased), who was serving as Kanungo in the Revenue Department. He retired on 31.12.1986. He died on 06.12.2003, leaving behind the plaintiff as his legally wedded wife. According to her, she was entitled to get pensionary benefits as per the rules. The respondents No. 2 to 5-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for the sake of convenience), have sanctioned the family pension in favour of the appellant-defendant, namely, Smt. Kamla alias Laso (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for the sake of convenience). She also issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cause of action has arisen to her on 06.12.2003, when her husband Prem Lal has expired and family pension was sanctioned by defendants No. 2 to 5 in favour of defendant Smt. Kamla alias Laso. Defendants No. 1 to 4, as arrayed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. filed the written statement. According to the written statement filed by them, no documents were tendered by the retiree to the effect that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Prem Lal. According to them, at the time of retirement, defendant, Smt. Kamla alias Laso was shown as wife in form No. 3. The name of the plaintiff did not figure in the pension papers. The written statement was also filed by the Senior Deputy Accountant General, H.P., Shimla, defendant No. 2, as arrayed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. 3. THE defendant No. 5, Smt. Kamla alias Laso, as arrayed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. contested the suit. According to her, she was legally wedded wife of late Sh. Prem Lal. She married him in the year, 1953. She was nominated by late Sh. THE defendant No. 5, Smt. Kamla alias Laso, as arrayed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. contested the suit. According to her, she was legally wedded wife of late Sh. Prem Lal. She married him in the year, 1953. She was nominated by late Sh. Prem Lal as wife. Sh. Prem Lal has died on 06.12.2003. Sh. Prem Lal has also adopted Sh. Chaman Lal as his son. He has also executed a valid will and mutation to this effect was also attested. According to her, the family pension was rightly sanctioned in her favour. 4. REPLICATION was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant No. 5, Smt. Kamla alias Laso and also to the joint written statement filed by defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 25.04.2006. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and she was declared legally wedded wife of late Sh. Prem Lal and was held entitled to get pension and retiral benefits after the death of her husband on 06.12.2003. The defendants No. 1 to 4 were restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction to release any compensation of late Sh. Prem Lal in favour of defendant No. 5, Smt. Kamla alias Laso. 5. FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16.09.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., Smt. Kamla alias Laso filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P. Learned District Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba (HP) dismissed the appeal on 25.05.2012. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 6. NOTICES were issued to the respondents on 13.08.2012. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate has appeared for respondent No. 1, Smt. Pesho and Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has put in appearance on behalf of defendants No. 2, 4 and 5. Mr. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have mis-lead the documentary as well as oral evidence. 7. PLAINTIFF has led her evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. According to the averments contained in Ex. PW-1/A, she was married to Sh. Prem Lal, son of Shri Rijhu, village Sarol (Haripur) about 62-63 years back as per Hindu rites. Three daughters, namely, Durgo, Dhrubi and Suman (Guddi) were born out of the wedlock. Her husband was employed in Revenue Department as Kanungo. PW-1/A. According to the averments contained in Ex. PW-1/A, she was married to Sh. Prem Lal, son of Shri Rijhu, village Sarol (Haripur) about 62-63 years back as per Hindu rites. Three daughters, namely, Durgo, Dhrubi and Suman (Guddi) were born out of the wedlock. Her husband was employed in Revenue Department as Kanungo. He retired 23-24 years back. She further stated that when her daughters were 10 years and 5 years old, her husband brought Kamla to his house and she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. She was entitled to get pension after the death of Prem Lal. However, the defendant Kamla Devi, in connivance with Revenue Department, has got the pension released in her favour. She has requested the Revenue Department to do the needful. However, no steps were taken to redress her grievance. She has also got issued a notice to the Revenue Department through her Advocate. According to her, her husband has brought the Barat, Bedi was set up and the Saptapadi was performed. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that she was married in village Sarol. She did not remember the names of the persons, who have participated in the marriage. She stayed in village Sarol after her marriage. The marriage was performed in village Chakloo. She further deposed that her younger daughter is 40-45 years old. She stayed in her parents house. She has feigned ignorance that Prem Lal married Kamla in the year 1953, though she deposed that she stayed with Prem Pal. She did not know whether Chaman Lal was adopted by Prem Lal. 8. PW-2, Dhrubi Devi, is daughter of the plaintiff. She has also led her evidence by filing an affidavit, Ex. PW-2/A. According to her, her father was employed in Revenue Department. They are three sisters. When she was five years old, her father brought Kamla Devi to his house, which led to friction in the family. Her mother was thrown out of the house. Her father retired in 1986. He died on 06.12.2003. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that Prem Lal has married Kamla in the year 1953. According to her, her mother was thrown out of house about 42-43 years back. She has denied the suggestion that Prem Lal has not solemnized marriage with the plaintiff. Her father retired in 1986. He died on 06.12.2003. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that Prem Lal has married Kamla in the year 1953. According to her, her mother was thrown out of house about 42-43 years back. She has denied the suggestion that Prem Lal has not solemnized marriage with the plaintiff. During cross-examination, it was suggested to PW-2, Dhrubi that her marriage was arranged by late Shri Prem Lal and Smt. Kamla. Though she has denied this suggestion, but this suggestion on behalf of Kamla Devi, proves that she was admitted to be daughter of plaintiff. She has admitted that her father has nominated Kamla Devi for the purpose of pension. Pw-3, Uttam Chand has also led his evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. Pw-3/A. It is stated in the affidavit that he knew Prem Lal and plaintiff. They were husband and wife. Three daughters were born out of the wedlock, namely, Durgo, Dhrubi and Suman (Guddi). Sarol and Haripur were in the same Gram Panchayat, Sarol. He has seen plaintiff Smt. Pesho living with Prem Lal. However, after the birth of two daughters, namely, Durgo and Dhrubi, Prem Lal brought another woman and thereafter, the plaintiff was thrown out of the house. Prem Lal has retired as Kanungo. In his cross-examination, Pw-3 Uttam Chand has deposed that plaintiff was thrown out of the house 40-50 years back. He has denied the suggestion that Prem Lal has contracted marriage with Kamla in the year 1953. She further deposed that Kamla is living with Prem Lal since 40-50 years. He has participated in the marriage of Prem Lal. He has denied the suggestion that Kamla Devi is legally wedded wife of Prem Lal. 9. DW-1, Shri Krishan Chand has deposed that Prem Lal was working as Kanungo. According to him, in the pension record, the name Kamla is recorded as per Ex. DW-1/A. DW-2, Shri Vijay Kumar has deposed that he was working as Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Haripur. He has proved Ex.DW-2/A. 10. DW-3, Smt. Kamla has also led her evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. DW-3/A. It is stated in the affidavit that Smt. Pesho, plaintiff is not the wife of Sh. Prem Lal. She further deposed that she is the legally wedded wife of Prem Lal. She got married with Prem Lal according to the Hindu rites and customs. DW-3, Smt. Kamla has also led her evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. DW-3/A. It is stated in the affidavit that Smt. Pesho, plaintiff is not the wife of Sh. Prem Lal. She further deposed that she is the legally wedded wife of Prem Lal. She got married with Prem Lal according to the Hindu rites and customs. Her husband was working in the Revenue Department as Kanungo. He has nominated her for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He died on 06.12.2003. He was entitled to get the pension. Prem Lal has adopted Chaman Lal 42 years back. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that she did not remember her date of birth. She did not know the parentage of Durgo and Dhrubi. She did not know that Prem Lal was married to Pesho. She did not know where Dhrubi was married. She has feigned ignorance that Durgo and Dhrubi were married from village Sarol. She has denied that she has performed Kanyadan of Dhrubi Devi. She did not know the exact date of the marriage, but according to her, it was performed 60 years back. She could not give the complete description of the marriage ceremony. The mutation of Prem Lal's property was attested in their favour. She has denied the suggestion that she never got married to Prem Lal. Dw-4, Shri Tek Chand, has also led his evidence by filing an affidavit Ex. Dw-4/A. According to him, the marriage of Prem Lal and Kamla was performed 58 years back. They were living as husband and wife. Chaman Lal was adopted by Prem Lal and Kamla 42 years back. Prem Lal was working as Kanungo in Revenue Department. He died on 06.12.2003. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was born in 1941. According to him, Prem Lal and Kamla were married 57-58 years back. However, he did not know where the marriage was solemnized. 11. WHAT emerges from the statements of PW-1, Pesho and PW-3, Uttam Chand, is that Uttam Chand was resident of Village Sarol. He has seen plaintiff living with Prem Lal as his wife in Village Sarol. PW-1, Pesho has also deposed that she was married at village Sarol. According to her, the marriage was performed as per Hindu rites. The Barat had come and Satpari was performed at Village Chakloo. He has seen plaintiff living with Prem Lal as his wife in Village Sarol. PW-1, Pesho has also deposed that she was married at village Sarol. According to her, the marriage was performed as per Hindu rites. The Barat had come and Satpari was performed at Village Chakloo. According to her, when her daughters were young, Prem Lal brought Kamla to his house and she was thrown out of the house. She went to her parents house where third daughter was born. PW-2, Dhrubi has also deposed that she is daughter of plaintiff and Shri Prem Lal. According to PW-3, Uttam Chand, Durgo, Dhrubi and Suman were born out of the wedlock of plaintiff and Shri Prem Lal. Statement of PW-1, Pesho is duly supported by PW-2, Dhrubi Devi and PW-3, Uttam Chand. It is nowhere stated by DW-4, Tek Chand in his affidavit that the marriage of plaintiff was not solemnized with Sh. Prem Lal. 12. STATEMENT of DW-3, Smt. Kamla, Ex. DW-3/A, does not inspire confidence. She did not know her date of birth. She could not give the date when she was married except that it was solemnized 60 years back. According to Ex.-DA, the date of birth of Kamla is recorded as 1947. In Ex. DW-2/A, the date of birth of Kamla is recorded as 1947. In Ex. PW-1/A, the year of date of birth of defendant Kamla is shown as 1945. Thus, according to these documents, the age of Kamla in 1953 was 6 to 8 years. It cannot be believed that Prem Lal was married to Kamla, when she was six to eight years old. What emerges from the statements of PW-1, Pesho, PW-2, Dhrubi and PW-3, Uttam Chand, is that Pesho was legally wedded wife of Prem Lal. Learned Courts below have also come to right conclusion that during the subsisting marriage of Pesho Devi with Prem Lal, Kamla could not solemnize marriage with Prem Lal. The Courts below have rightly considered Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court below have correctly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record. The appellant has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Shri Prem Lal. Mere nomination in documents will not confer any legal right upon defendant Kamla to get retiral benefits. 13. The Court below have correctly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record. The appellant has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Shri Prem Lal. Mere nomination in documents will not confer any legal right upon defendant Kamla to get retiral benefits. 13. ACCORDINGLY, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.