JUDGMENT : S. Vimala, J. 1. Who is the wife? Is it the first plaintiff Saradambal or the first defendant Subbammal out of both, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu (who was employed under the second defendant) entitled to receive the terminal benefits payable on account of death of Kesavalu, is the issue raised in this case. 2. The suit had been filed seeking the relief of a) declaration that the plaintiffs, i.e. first plaintiff is the wife and Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased V. Kesavalu, are the legal heirs of the deceased and b) for consequential injunction. 2a. The suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendants filed the appeal. The appeal was allowed to be dismissed for default. Later, restoration application was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the restoration application in C.M.A. No. 868 of 2016. This Court thought it fit to decide the issue regarding restoration, subject to the merits involved in the claim. Therefore, the application was heard along with the appeal and after hearing the broad contentions on both sides, this Court felt that there was a arguable case for the defendant, therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was ordered to be restored. 3. Learned counsel appearing on both sides were permitted to peruse the documents which was produced by the second defendant in the suit viz., Railway Department and further arguments were heard on both sides. 4. According to the plaintiffs, as they are shown as nominees/legal heirs in the service record of the deceased V. Kesavalu, therefore, they are entitled to claim the terminal benefits. 5. The case of the first defendant is that: (a) she is the only legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu and the only son born to them is one Venkatesan and therefore, as such, they are the only persons entitled to claim terminal benefits; (b) the suit itself is not maintainable as the first suit filed in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 was dismissed as not pressed and therefore, for the very same relief, the second suit was not maintainable. 6. 6. According to the second defendant, (a) the deceased V. Kesavalu had been employed as Fitter; he died on 11.06.1993 while in service; and the late employee had declared all the four plaintiffs as his family in the Family Composition Register; (b) the first plaintiff has been mentioned as nominee for the Railway Group Insurance Scheme. Further, the second defendant expected only the order of the Court as to whom the terminal benefits should be disbursed. 7. The following issues have been framed by the trial Court. (a) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased V. Kesavalu? (b) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for order of injunction as prayed for? (c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree as prayed for? (d) To what reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to? 8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first and second plaintiffs have been examined as witnesses and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B8 have been marked. 9. The trial Court, on examination of oral and documentary evidence, gave a verdict that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased V. Kesavalu and as such, they are entitled to receive the terminal benefits and thus, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the first defendant has preferred this appeal. 10. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that: (a) the marriage between the first plaintiff and deceased V. Kesavalu is not proved either through the filling of the marriage invitation or through examination of witnesses; (b) the legal heir-ship certificate in favour of the plaintiffs is not issued by the competent authority and as such, it is invalid; (c) the earlier suit in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 having been withdrawn, the present suit is not maintainable and (d) the family Court should have relied upon the sale deed dated 25.09.1967 (marked as Ex.B1), in which, the first defendant has been described as the wife of the deceased. 11. It is the allegation of the defendants that the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 and it was dismissed as not pressed; as the previous suit was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the second suit is not maintainable. 11. It is the allegation of the defendants that the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 and it was dismissed as not pressed; as the previous suit was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the second suit is not maintainable. 12. The materials placed before this Court only show that the present suit has been filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai, and on establishment of the Family Court, the plaint has been returned for being presented before the Family Court and thereafter, the Family Court has disposed of the suit. The Family Court, while discussing this issue, has pointed out that when the plaintiffs have disputed the factum of filing of the suit in O.S. No. 663 of 1997, the first defendant should have taken steps to call for original documents to prove the filing of the suit and as that is not done, no reliance can be placed upon the judgment and decree, which is filed as Exs.B4 and B5 (which are the copy of the decree and Judgment passed in O.S. No. 663 of 1997). 13. From the records, it is seen that both the first plaintiff and first defendant are unlettered women, not even knowing to sign, but only putting thump impression. 14. Under such circumstances, it is not known whether the first plaintiff could have filed the suit before the District Munsif, Ambattur. In any event, the first defendant should have insisted upon that issue being taken up as a preliminary issue. That has not been done. Therefore, the contention that the decree in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 operates as a bar for filing of the second suit cannot be accepted. 15. The decree in O.S. No. 663 of 1997 simply reads that the suit is withdrawn. It is not known whether the plaintiffs sought for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit or not. The plaintiffs having suffered the death of the breadwinner of the family, in all probabilities, should have sought for liberty to file a fresh suit. The order does not expressly mention that permission is granted to file a fresh suit, but, the order does not indicate that there had been circumstances, which prohibited the court from granting permission to institute the suit afresh. The order does not expressly mention that permission is granted to file a fresh suit, but, the order does not indicate that there had been circumstances, which prohibited the court from granting permission to institute the suit afresh. Under such circumstances, when the order do not prohibit the permission to institute the fresh suit, then the interpretation is that the permission is deemed to have been granted, more especially when there are no established circumstances which would go to show that liberty to institute a fresh suit could not have been granted. It is rightly said, procedures are handmaid of justice and not mistress of justice. The duty of the Court is to render the substantial justice upholding the rights of the parties and not to do technical justice depriving the rights of the parties. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has produced the sale deed dated 25.09.1967, in which, the first defendant Subbammal has been described as wife of Kesavalu, but, the persons connected with the sale deed have not been examined to prove the status of the parties as described in the sale deed. 17. Moreover, till this date the so-called son of the first defendant alleged to have been born between herself and the deceased did not come forward with any claim that he is the son of the deceased. The birth certificate of the son is filed as Ex.B3, in which, the date of Birth is mentioned as 08.09.1966. But, so far, no claim has been raised by the son. Under such circumstances, the claim in favour of the alleged son born between the first defendant/appellant and the deceased cannot be considered. 18. As already pointed out, the rival claimants are unlettered ladies. Both alleged that several decades before, they married the deceased. Because of the lapse of time, this Court cannot expect the marriage invitation and the persons, who performed the marriage, to depose about the marriage. The Court should decide the issue only based upon available materials before the Court. This issue having arisen after the death of the deceased, like in the case of a Will, the Court can only rely upon the document maintained by the Railway Administration. 19. The second defendant has produced original service register of the deceased V. Kesavalu. 20. The Court should decide the issue only based upon available materials before the Court. This issue having arisen after the death of the deceased, like in the case of a Will, the Court can only rely upon the document maintained by the Railway Administration. 19. The second defendant has produced original service register of the deceased V. Kesavalu. 20. A perusal of the service register would go to show that the date of appointment is 21.05.1965. In the nomination for benefits under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980, the name of the nominee has been stated as Sarada and her relationship is stated to be as that of the wife. The name of K. Kannan (Son) has been shown as the person to whom the right of nominee shall pass in the event of the nominee predeceasing the Government Servant. This application is signed by two witnesses and it has been counter signed by the Railway authorities. This document having been maintained in the course of regular administration, great weight has to be attached to the statement made therein. Entries in Service Register are made very carefully after verifying the original certificates. As and when event happens, it is recorded then and there. They are kept in safe custody and they are verified during frequent intervals. Therefore, great value must be attached to the entries found in the Service Register. 21. Moreover, it is the statement of the husband himself during the year 1980. If really, the first defendant had been the wife, the deceased would have stated so in the service register. It is not so. Under such circumstances, the inference is that the case of the first plaintiff that she is the wife and Kannan is the son, born through the deceased-Kesavalu, must be true. 22. In the ration card and the legal heir-ship certificate produced by the plaintiffs, the other plaintiffs, namely, Velankanni and Mariadoss are shown as daughter and son of the deceased-Kesavalu. So far as ration card is concerned, objection has been raised for marking of the document as it was a xerox copy. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon that. However, the legal heir certificate adds corroboration to the statement of the wife that they are the son and daughter, born between her and the deceased-Kesavalu. 23. So far as ration card is concerned, objection has been raised for marking of the document as it was a xerox copy. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon that. However, the legal heir certificate adds corroboration to the statement of the wife that they are the son and daughter, born between her and the deceased-Kesavalu. 23. Relying upon the same ration card it is contended that one more person has been shown as daughter of the Kesavalu and she is not really the daughter of Kesavalu but the daughter born between brother of Kesavalu and the Plaintiff herein and that would prove that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Kesavalu. This contention cannot be accepted because this contention is not supported by pleadings. There is a general statement that there is no legal marriage between Kesavalu and the Plaintiff and that the defendant is the wife. There is no specific averment that the plaintiff is the wife of brother of Kesavalu and therefore in the absence of pleadings no amount of evidence can be looked into and no arguments can be entertained. 24. The trial court has considered all the materials and approached the problem in a rational way. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court has to be confirmed. 25. In the result, the decree and judgment of the trial court is confirmed and this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeal suit dismissed.