JUDGMENT : SOPHY THOMAS, J. 1. The defeated plaintiff in O.S. No. 290 of 2007 of Family Court, Kollam, is the appellant herein. She filed that suit for declaring her status as the legally wedded wife of diseased Rajendran Pillai, for injunction both prohibitory and mandatory and also for declaring partition deed No. 3018 of 2005 as null and void. 2. The siblings of deceased Rajendran Pillai were defendants 1 to 3, the Secretary of Co-operative Banks, where deceased Rajendran Pillai was having deposits, were defendants 4 and 5, and the President and Secretary of Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, Kayalazhikam, were additional defendants 6 and 7, in the suit and they are respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in the appeal. 3. The case of the appellant is that she married deceased Rajendran Pillai as per Hindu Nair rites and custom on 24.01.1989 and thereafter, they were living together as husband and wife till his death on 02.09.2005. A schedule landed property and B schedule Bank deposits absolutely belonged to him. After death of Shri Rajendran Pillai, respondents 1 to 3, who are his siblings, evicted the appellant from that property, and they executed partition deed No. 3018 of 2005, dividing the property among them. Since she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai having no issues, she is the sole legal heir to inherit his properties and other assets. So, according to her, respondents 1 to 3, have no right over A schedule property or B schedule Bank accounts/deposits. Hence, she filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 filed written statement opposing her claim. According to them, Shri Rajendran Pillai never married the appellant and they never lived together as husband and wife. After divorcing his wife Geetha Rani, Shri Rajendran Pillai was leading a spiritual life till his death on 02.09.2005. On his death, A and B schedule properties devolved upon respondents 1 to 3, being his legal heirs. The appellant has no right whatsoever, over A schedule immovable property or B schedule amounts. 5. No written statement was filed by defendants 4 and 5. Additional defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement along with a counter claim for declaring absolute right of the Temple over A schedule property, and also to declare partition deed No. 3018 of 2005 as null and void. 6. 5. No written statement was filed by defendants 4 and 5. Additional defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement along with a counter claim for declaring absolute right of the Temple over A schedule property, and also to declare partition deed No. 3018 of 2005 as null and void. 6. The Family Court, formulated necessary issues and the parties went on trial. PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Extx.A1 to A16 were marked from the side of petitioner/appellant and DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B25 were marked from the side of respondents 1 to 3. Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked as witness exhibits. 7. After analyzing the facts and evidence, the Family Court, dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim with cost of respondents 1 to 3, against which the appellant has come up in this appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 9. The main question posed in this appeal is whether the appellant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai. Admittedly, the appellant was the person reciting Bhagavatham in Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, the family temple of Shri Rajendran Pillai. According to her, they fell in love and on 24.01.1989, their marriage was solemnized in that temple as per Hindu Nair rites and custom. Thereafter, for 16 years till the death of Shri Rajendran Pillai, they were living together as husband and wife. 10. In order to prove her marriage, she produced Ext.A7 copy of the marriage certificate issued by Sri. G. Gopinatha Pillai, Secretary of Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple,. That certificate is not bearing any date. PW-7 is Sri. G. Gopinatha Pillai who issued that certificate. He gave testimony to the effect that, the appellant Saraswathy who was the Sweeper in that Temple, brought that certificate, and he affixed his signature in it. He categorically stated that, he had no information about any marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant. He further stated that they never lived together, and he never knew that they were husband and wife. He went on to say that, to his knowledge, so far, no marriages were solemnized at Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, and no marriage register is available in that Temple. Ext.A7 was not issued on the basis of any register kept in that Temple. He went on to say that, to his knowledge, so far, no marriages were solemnized at Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, and no marriage register is available in that Temple. Ext.A7 was not issued on the basis of any register kept in that Temple. He is not sure whether the appellant ever approached him for a marriage certificate. But he admitted that for the appellant to claim defence pension of Shri Rajendran Pillai, he issued Ext.A7 certificate, though he had not witnessed any marriage between them. He added that though there was no marriage between them, they were having an affair and to his knowledge they never lived together. So, Ext.A7 marriage certificate relied on by the appellant will not prove any valid marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant. 11. The appellant is relying on Ext.A8 certificate issued by Shri S. Ramanan, the Municipal Councillor of Paravoor Municipality, to say that Shri Rajendran Pillai married her and they were living together as husband and wife till his death. PW-6 is Shri Ramanan, who issued Ext.A8 certificate. His testimony is to the effect that for getting pension for the appellant from Military Department, he certified the format, being the councillor of the Ward, where the appellant was staying. He issued that certificate without receiving any application from the appellant. According to him he had seen the certificate issued from the Secretary of the Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple, on the basis of which he issued Ext.A8 certificate. But he did not verify the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Secretary of Kayalazhikam Sree Bhadra Devi Temple. He had not seen any marriage register of the Temple, ration card or election ID card, of the appellant to verify whether the appellant was the wife of Shri Rajendran Pillai. He has no case that he attended the marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant. So the testimony of PWs. 6 and 7 or Exts.A7 and A8 are not sufficient to show that there was legal marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant as per Hindu Nair rites and customs as claimed by the appellant. 12. The appellant has got a case that, for about 16 years herself and Shri Rajendran Pillai were living together holding out to the society as husband and wife. 12. The appellant has got a case that, for about 16 years herself and Shri Rajendran Pillai were living together holding out to the society as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to long, continuous cohabitation, holding out to the society as husband and wife a presumption could be drawn of a legal and valid marriage between the appellant and Shri Rajendran Pillai. 13. PW-2, Sreedevi Amma, is the cousin sister of Shri Rajendran Pillai. Her testimony is to the effect that her mother Smt. Bhageerathi Amma conducted the marriage between Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant. Shri Vasudeva Sharma was the Priest who solemnized the marriage. She even deposed about the rituals of the marriage undergone by the parties, such as tying of thali, handing over of Manthrakodi circumambulating around the five etc. which, even the appellant did not say either in the pleadings or in her evidence. PW-2 would say that after marriage, the appellant and Shri Rajendran Pillai were staying in her house. Exts.A5 is an application submitted by Smt. Bhageerathi Amma before the temple committee Secretary for issuing marriage certificate of Shri Rajendran Pillai and the appellant. Ext.A4 is another petition submitted by Smt.Bhageerathi Amma before Paravoor Village Officer to get the records of marriage between the appellant and Shri Rajendran Pillai, as no records were available in the temple. No application was ever seen submitted by the appellant before any authorities for getting her marriage certificate. So, obviously Smt. Bhageerathi Amma and her daughter Sreedevi Amma were more interested to create a document to prove the marriage between the appellant and deceased Rajendran Pillai. Admittedly all such applications were filed only after the death of Shri Rajendran Pillai. PW-1 the appellant herself admitted before court that Smt. Bhageerathi Amma and Sreedevi Amma were in enimical terms with respondents 1 to 3. So, the testimony of PW-2 is not liable to be accepted to find that the appellant was the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai. 14. PW-1, admitted that in none of the records of Shri Rajendran Pillai, such as ration card, pension certificate, election ID card, etc. her name will find a place. If she was living with him for along 16 years as his wife, definitely the ration card, voters ID etc will show her name as the wife of Shri Rajendran Pillai. 14. PW-1, admitted that in none of the records of Shri Rajendran Pillai, such as ration card, pension certificate, election ID card, etc. her name will find a place. If she was living with him for along 16 years as his wife, definitely the ration card, voters ID etc will show her name as the wife of Shri Rajendran Pillai. She admitted that in the ration card name of herself and her mother alone are there. In Exts.B1 and B2 applications submitted by the appellant before Tahasildar and Village Officer, she had categorically admitted that, there was no marriage between herself and Shri Rajendran Pillai per religious rites and custom. Exts.B3, B11 and B16 documents will support the case of the respondents that in none of those judicial proceedings the appellant could prove that she was the legally wedded wife of deceased Rajendran Pillai with any supporting document. Ext.B16 is dated 28.02.2013. At that time also she had not produced any marriage certificate, obviously because, she was not in possession of any such certificate. She did not produce the marriage certificate, even along with the present suit for declaration of her status. Ext.A7 marriage certificate was seen produced before court only on 12.04.2013 i.e. after 8 years of the death of Shri Rajendran Pillai. So it is manifestly clear that, it was a document manipulated at a later point of time. PW-1 deposed that she got Ext.A7 copy of marriage certificate from among the records of the temple seen abandoned in the temple premises, by the respondents, and if so, it is against the testimony of PW-7 that the appellant brought the certificate and he signed the same. The testimony of other witnesses examined from her part, will not improve her case. 15. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 have got a case, that the temple authorities influenced the appellant to get the property of Shri Rajendran Pillai for the temple, and the appellant is only instrumental to that. We get sufficient indication in support of that allegation, from the testimony of PW-1 herself. She would say that she has no objection in giving the schedule properties to the temple. She asserted that in 34 cents of land herself or respondents 1 to 3 have no right, as it belongs to the temple. 16. We get sufficient indication in support of that allegation, from the testimony of PW-1 herself. She would say that she has no objection in giving the schedule properties to the temple. She asserted that in 34 cents of land herself or respondents 1 to 3 have no right, as it belongs to the temple. 16. The overall evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion, that the appellant was made an instrument to claim the properties of Shri Rajendran Pillai, for the temple, as she had some unholy affair with Shri Rajendran Pillai. The Family Court rightly dismissed the suit finding that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife of Shri Rajendran Pillai. So A and B schedule properties of Shri Rajendran Pillai devolved upon his legal heirs, and the partition deed executed among them is not liable to be disturbed. 17. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment and decree. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.