JUDGMENT : Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 made in A.S.No.60 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1998 made in O.S.No.19 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sengottai. 1. The defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for a consequential relief of injunction as against the second defendant that she should not interfere with the peaceful marital life of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trail Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.60 of 1998 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. 3. The plaintiff had contended that she is the relative of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant were in love with each other and they were living as husband and wife for nearly 6 years prior to January 1993. Since the said fact came to the knowledge of the villagers, they have celebrated the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant on 21.01.1993. Out of the said wedlock, the plaintiff has given birth to a female child on 15.11.1994. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant claiming to be a wife of the first defendant, had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and for consequential injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default. According to the plaintiff, prior to the marriage on 21.01.1993, an agreement was entered into on 15.02.1992 between the plaintiff and the first defendant wherein both of them have signed and many villagers have also signed in the said agreement. Only with a view to prevent the celebration of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the second defendant had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994. According to the plaintiff, she is residing in the matrimonial house of the first defendant along with the child. Only with a view to prevent the celebration of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the second defendant had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994. According to the plaintiff, she is residing in the matrimonial house of the first defendant along with the child. The plaintiff had further contended that since O.S.No.128 of 1994 has been dismissed for default, the second defendant cannot continue to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement contending that the first defendant got married to the second defendant on 12.01.1992 and the said marriage was registered before the Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office on 18.01.1993. Since the second defendant was pregnant, she could not pursue O.S.No.128 of 1994 and hence, the same was dismissed for default. The defendants further contended that the first defendant did not get married to the plaintiff as contended by the plaintiff. They further contended that the plaintiff has not pleaded about the date and place of marriage and all the averments in the plaint are utter falsehood. 5. The trial Court held that the dismissal of O.S.No.128 of 1994 will not bar the second defendant from contending that she is the legally wedded wife in defending the present suit. The trial Court also found that the agreement dated 21.01.1993 said to have been executed in the presence of the villagers does not evince the confidence of the Court, in view of the many discrepancies with regard to the dates found in the said document. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has not independently proved her marriage with the first defendant except producing Exhibit A4 agreement. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff has not examined either her parents or the first defendant's parents to establish that the marriage had taken place on 21.01.1993. The birth certificate produced by the plaintiff of her daughter as Exhibit A3 will not in any way help to prove that already a marriage had taken place between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The birth certificate produced by the plaintiff of her daughter as Exhibit A3 will not in any way help to prove that already a marriage had taken place between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of the first defendant and the second defendant and also Exhibit B1 marriage certificate dated 18.01.1993 and also the family card marked as Exhibit B2 to arrive at a finding that the first defendant is in fact married to the second defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 are living as husband and wife. Based upon the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit. 6. The First Appellate Court relied upon Exhibit A4 to arrive at a finding that the marriage has taken place between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 21.01.1993. The First Appellate Court placed strong reliance upon Exhibit A3 birth certificate which disclose that a female child was born to the plaintiff and the first defendant on 23.11.1994. According to the First Appellate Court, the birth certificate under Exhibit A3 will prove that the marriage had taken place between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 21.01.1993. The First Appellate Court also found fault with the defendants for not producing the birth certificate of their daughter namely Subhasri. The First Appellate Court rejected Exhibit B2 family card on the ground that the same would not show that the first defendant and the second defendant were living as husband and wife. The First Appellate Court also rejected Exhibit B1 marriage certificate on the ground that mere registration of marriage without proving the marriage will not be any help. Based upon the said findings, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the lower appellant Court is justified in holding that a subsequent marriage celebrated on the basis of an agreement of marriage will prevail over the marriage registered under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act? 2. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the lower appellant Court is justified in holding that a subsequent marriage celebrated on the basis of an agreement of marriage will prevail over the marriage registered under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act? 2. Whether the lower appellate court justified in relying on a birth certificate of a child as a conclusive proof to prove the validity of the marriage alleged to be conducted on the basis of an agreement of marriage in absence of any independent witnesses to establish the same? 3. Is it not the onus on the plaintiff to prove the marriage alleged to be conducted on the basis of an agreement? 4. Whether the lower appellate Court justified in rendering a finding in respect of the marriage of the second respondent without deciding the validity of the marriage alleged to be celebrated between the plaintiff and the first defendant? 5. Whether the lower appellate Court justified in holding a registered marriage between the spouse as null and void for want of evidence to prove that they are living together?” 8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the First Appellate Court erred in relying upon Exhibit A4 agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant for arriving at a finding that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. He further contended that it was only an agreement to get married on a later date and hence, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the marriage with the first defendant through independent witness. He further contended that Exhibit A3 birth certificate which can only be considered to be the proof of paternity of the child and it does not automatically prove that the plaintiff and the first defendant had undergone a legally valid marriage prior to the birth of the child. He further contended that once the marriage is proved between the first defendant and the second defendant, the First Appellate Court cannot find fault with the fact that whether the first defendant is living together or not. The production of Exhibit B2 family card will clearly establish that the defendants 1 and 2 are residing together as husband and wife. He further contended that once the marriage is proved between the first defendant and the second defendant, the First Appellate Court cannot find fault with the fact that whether the first defendant is living together or not. The production of Exhibit B2 family card will clearly establish that the defendants 1 and 2 are residing together as husband and wife. He further contended that the entire burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. The First Appellate Court had erred in wrongly placing the burden of proof upon the defendants to establish that there was no marriage between the first defendant and the plaintiff. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the plaintiff has proved her marriage by filing Exhibit A4 agreement and the production of Exhibit A3 birth certificate. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Exhibit A3 birth certificate reflects the name of the plaintiff and the first defendant as mother and father of the child. This will clearly indicate that the plaintiff and the first defendant had married on 21.01.1993. He further contended that the second defendant had filed O.S.No.128 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Sengottai for declaring herself as the legally wedded wife of the first defendant, but the said suit was dismissed for default. Hence, the second defendant cannot be heard to contend again that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal. 10. I have considered the submissions on either side. 11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is the relative of the first defendant and they were in love with each other from the year 1987 onwards. When the villagers came to know about the said relationship, they entered into an agreement under Exhibit A4 on 21.01.1993 and the marriage was celebrated on the said date. Thereafter, she has given birth to female child on 15.11.1994 which is evident by birth certificate marked as Exhibit B3. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is not married to the first defendant. 12. The anchor sheet of the plaintiff is Exhibit A3 birth certificate and Exhibit A4 marriage agreement said to have been entered into on 21.01.1993. Thereafter, she has given birth to female child on 15.11.1994 which is evident by birth certificate marked as Exhibit B3. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is not married to the first defendant. 12. The anchor sheet of the plaintiff is Exhibit A3 birth certificate and Exhibit A4 marriage agreement said to have been entered into on 21.01.1993. A perusal of Exhibit A4 marriage agreement shows that the said agreement has been entered into on 21.01.1993 under which it has been agreed by the villagers to conduct the marriage of the plaintiff and the first defendant on 25.01.1993. The said document has not been signed either by the plaintiff or by the first defendant. Though the said document is said to have been signed by the father of the plaintiff and the father of the first defendant, the plaintiff has not chosen to examine either of them. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, the marriage itself had taken place on 21.01.1993. A reading of Exhibit A4 shows that only the agreement was entered into on 21.01.1993 proposing to conduct the marriage on 25.01.1993. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in on the side of the plaintiff to establish that in fact her marriage had taken place on 25.01.1993 as proposed under Exhibit A4. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that she got married to the first defendant on 21.01.1993 stands disproved, in view of the recitals in Exhibit A4. 13. The plaintiff strongly relied upon Exhibit A3 birth certificate in which it is reflected that the plaintiff is the mother and the first defendant is the father of a female child said to have been born on 15.11.1994. According to the plaintiff, the birth certificate is one of the strong proofs to indicate that the plaintiff has got married to the first defendant on 21.01.1993. Once a marriage is proved, a child born during the subsistence of the said marriage is a legitimate child, but the converse is not true. The birth of a child will not lead to a presumption that the men and women reflected as parents in the birth certificate had already undergone a legally valid marriage. At the most, the birth certificate can only prove date of birth and the name of the parents and will not prove that a marriage had already taken place between the parents. At the most, the birth certificate can only prove date of birth and the name of the parents and will not prove that a marriage had already taken place between the parents. The plaintiff has pleaded that she was in relationship with the first defendant from the year 1987 onwards and hence, there is every possibility of the birth certificate being true, but that will not automatically lead to proof of marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Especially when the recitals in Exhibit A4 clearly indicate that the marriage is proposed to be conducted on 25.01.1993 only. Hence, the reliance placed by the plaintiff on Exhibit A3 birth certificate will not be of any help to prove that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the second defendant had already filed O.S.No.128 of 1994 to declare herself as the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. The said suit was dismissed for default. Hence, the second defendant cannot be heard to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant, in view of Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The bar under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C precludes only the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of auction. But in the present case, the second defendant has not filed the present case, but only defending the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C will not get attracted. The second defendant is entitled to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 15. On the side of the defendants, they have produced Exhibit B1 marriage certificate in which, it is reflected that the second defendant has got married to the first defendant on 21.11.1992 and the same has been registered before Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office on 18.01.1993. Only after registration of the marriage between the defendants, the agreement under Exhibit A4 has been entered into on 21.01.1993. Even assuming that the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant had taken place on 21.01.1993, it is only after registration of the marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant. Hence, viewed from any angle, the plaintiff cannot be declared to be the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 16. Even assuming that the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant had taken place on 21.01.1993, it is only after registration of the marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant. Hence, viewed from any angle, the plaintiff cannot be declared to be the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 16. The First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court mainly relying upon Exhibit A3 birth certificate and Exhibit A4 marriage agreement. This Court has already come to the conclusion that these two documents will not support the case of the plaintiff to prove her marriage with the first defendant. The First Appellate Court has also given a finding that mere registration of marriage will not prove the marriage. In the present case, the plaintiff has not disputed the registration of marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant. But, she has only contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. The First Appellate Court has unnecessarily gone into the fact whether the first defendant and the second defendant are living together as husband and wife after the marriage. This is an unnecessary issue for deciding whether the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. 17. In view of the above discussions, the substantial questions of law are answered as follows: 1. The First Appellate Court is not justified in holding that the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 21.01.1993 is a valid marriage, in view of the fact that the first defendant has got married to the second defendant even on 12.01.1992 and got it registered on 18.01.1993. 2. The First Appellate Court was not justified in relying upon the birth certificate which is just a proof of date of birth and the paternity of the child. It can never be considered to be the proof of the marriage between the parents whose names are reflected in the birth certificate. 3. The entire burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the marriage on the basis of independent oral and documentary evidence and hence, the First Appellate Court had erred in not relying upon Exhibit A4 marriage agreement. 4. 3. The entire burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the marriage on the basis of independent oral and documentary evidence and hence, the First Appellate Court had erred in not relying upon Exhibit A4 marriage agreement. 4. The First Appellate Court had erred in going into the issue of validity of marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant instead of arriving at a finding with regard to the validity of the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The First Appellate Court is not justified in rendering any finding with regard to the validity of the marriage between the defendants. 5. The first defendant and the second defendant got married on 12.11.1992 and the same has been registered on 18.01.1993. There is no pleadings on the side of the plaintiff alleging that without conducting a marriage, the same has been registered before the Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office. Hence, the findings of the First Appellate Court that the marriage registration will not prove the marriage is beyond the scope of the pleadings and hence, liable to be set aside. 18. In view of the above said discussion, all the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The second appeal is allowed. No costs.