JUDGMENT : 1. In this second appeal, challenge is made against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2002 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.394 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether Ex.B3, the nomination made by deceased Natesasn in favour of the fourth defendant in the suit would by itself confer the legal status on her as the wife of deceased Natesan, in the absence of any other legal material evidencing such fact? 3. Tr.Natesan employed under the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, is found that to have died in harness. Claiming that the plaintiffs alone are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan and alleging that the fourth defendant and the defendants 5 to 8 are attempting to obtain the gratuity, Provident fund, Pension etc., and the other benefits from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board on the death of Natesan, the plaintiffs have come forwarded with the suit seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction. 4. The respondents have resisted the case of the plaintiffs contending that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan. According to the defendants 4 to 8, they only are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan and the plaintiffs are not entitled to lay any claim to the terminal benefits from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board on the demise of Natesan and hence according to them, the plaintiffs have no cause of action to lay the suit against them. Further, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board has also taken a plea that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan and according to them, as per the records available with them and the records produced by the fourth defendant, only the fourth defendant and her children are entitled to receive the terminal benefits of the deceased employee-Natesan and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined.Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.B1 to B23 were marked. 6. 5. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined.Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.B1 to B23 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit and aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 7. Inasmuch as the defendants have disputed the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan, it is for the plaintiffs to establish, at the foremost, that the deceased Natesan married the first plaintiff and through the said marriage, the second plaintiff was born to them and thus the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan. 8. However, It is found that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan. In particular, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that a marriage took place between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan and through the said wedlock, the second plaintiff was born to them. The plaintiffs have not mentioned in the plaint and also established by placing acceptable materials as to when, where and in whose presence, the marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan took place. Accordingly, it is found that no material worth acceptance has been placed by them to evidence the same. 9. Materials placed on record go to disclose that claiming maintenance from the deceased Natesan, it is found that the proceedings in M.C.No.277 of 1970 has been laid by the first plaintiff against the deceased Natesan before the Magistrate's Court, Salem. The evidence tendered by the various witnesses in the said proceedings had come to be marked in the present suit, by way of Exs.B4 to B13. The order passed by the Magistrate in the said proceedings has come to be marked as Ex.B14. The evidence tendered by the various witnesses in the said proceedings had come to be marked in the present suit, by way of Exs.B4 to B13. The order passed by the Magistrate in the said proceedings has come to be marked as Ex.B14. On a perusal of the same, it is found that considering the evidence placed in the said proceeding, the Magistrate has held that the first plaintiff is not the wife of the deceased Natesan and further, it has been held that the first plaintiff is a married woman and married to one Aanai Gounden and the said marriage has not been dissolved in the manner known to law and accordingly held that the first plaintiff is not the wife of the deceased Natesan. It is thus found that no marriage whatsoever took place between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan and it is also found that the deceased Natesan has himself tendered evidence against the claim of the first plaintiff that she is his wedded wife and accordingly, it is found that the first plaintiff has been declined the claim of maintenance in the above said proceedings by the Magistrate. 10. However, it is found that the Magistrate in the said proceeding has come to the conclusion that the deceased Natesan was maintaining some illicit relationship with the first plaintiff and through the said illicit relationship, the second plaintiff was born. Accordingly held that the second plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance from the deceased Natesan. 11. In this proceeding also, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan had married and through the wedlock, the second plaintiff was born to them. As rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the birth certificate and school certificate etc., by themselves would not lead to the conclusion that a valid marriage or marriage as such took place between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan. In this connection, the reliance is placed upon on the decisions reported in 1998 (II) CTC 337 [Varghese Danial Vs. Balakrishnan and another] and 1999 (1) LAW WEEKLY 261 [Tmt.Girija alias Shanmuga Easwari Vs. Tmt.Saraswathi Ammal and three others] by the respondents' counsel. 12. In this connection, the reliance is placed upon on the decisions reported in 1998 (II) CTC 337 [Varghese Danial Vs. Balakrishnan and another] and 1999 (1) LAW WEEKLY 261 [Tmt.Girija alias Shanmuga Easwari Vs. Tmt.Saraswathi Ammal and three others] by the respondents' counsel. 12. Materials placed on record go to show that the deceased Natesan was maintaining some illicit relationship with the first plaintiff and it has also found that the second plaintiff had been born by way of the said relationship. Such being the position and when it is found that the second plaintiff had not been born to the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan, as a result of any marriage between them, it is found that as rightly contended by the respondents, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the benefits u/s.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in such view of the matter, the case projected by the plaintiffs that even if the first plaintiff is not entitled to receive the terminal benefits of the deceased Natesan, the second plaintiff should be granted the said benefits as she has been established to be the daughter of Natesan. In this connection, reliance is placed upon section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, on a perusal of the above said section, considering the materials placed on record in this matter, as the marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan has not been established, it is found that the second plaintiff born to the first plaintiff could not be declared to be entitled to the property of the deceased Natesan, on the footing that the she is his illegitimate child as per section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in this connection the respondents' counsel derive support from the decision reported in 1999 (3) LAW WEEKLY 677 [Singaram alias Velayudha Udayar & 2 others Vs. Subramaniam & 3 others] As per the above said authority, it is found that the when there is no marriage at all in any form between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan, their relationship could only be described as illicit relationship and when section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, does not deal with the rights of the children begotten through such illicit relationship, it is found that the plaintiffs on the whole cannot be granted any reliefs in the suit by holding that the they are entitled to obtain the terminal benefits of the deceased Natesan. 13. The decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs' counsel reported in 2010 (11) SCC 483 [Bharatha Matha and another Vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and others] and 1991 (2) LAW WEEKLY 562 [Venkataraghavan (Minor) represented by next friend M.D. Chellappa Vs. The District Educational Officer Chingelput, 2. The Assistant Educational Officer, Acharappakkam, Maduranthakam Taluk, Chingelput District, The Accountant General (Tamil Nadu), Madras 18], as rightly put forth would not apply to the case at hand as in the first decision above cited, a marriage has been established between the parties concerned and accordingly the children begotten through such a marriage has been declared to be entitled to inherit the property of the father. In so far as the present case is concerned, no evidence whatsoever has been let in to establish the factum of marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Natesan and on the other hand, the materials placed would only go to reveal that the deceased Natesan was having only illicit relationship with the first plaintiff, a married woman and in such view of the matter, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the second plaintiff has been born to the first plaintiff out of the illicit relationship that by itself would not entitle the plaintiffs to seek the benefit u/s.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in such view of the matter, it is found that the abovesaid decisions projected by the plaintiffs' counsel would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. The plaintiffs' counsel contended that the defendants 4 to 8 have not established that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan. 14. The plaintiffs' counsel contended that the defendants 4 to 8 have not established that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan. However, it is found that the deceased Natesan himself has declared only the fourth defendant as his wife in the nomination form and that apart the abovesaid defendants have produced abundant materials to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan and in such view of the matter, the contention of the plaintiffs' counsel that the defendants have not placed any proof to hold that the they are entitled to receive the terminal benefits of the deceased Natesan as such cannot be accepted. 15. As rightly put forth, the plaintiffs having come forwarded with the lis seeking reliefs on a particular set of facts and when the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case by placing acceptable and reliable materials, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to pick holes in the defendant's case and thereby attempt to succeed in their case sans proof with reference to the same. 16. In the light of the above discussions, the Courts below have rightly placed reliance upon not only the nomination form marked as Ex.B3 but also the other materials placed on record in coming to the conclusion that it is only the defendants 4 to 8, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Natesan and thereby entitled to receive the terminal benefits on his death from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. The substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal is accordingly answered. 17. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.