JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2000 made in A.S.No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2000 and made in O.S.No. 226 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur.) 1. The plaintiff B.Subatra in O.S.No. 226 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tirupur is the appellant herein. 2. The said suit had been filed by the plaintiff B.Subatra, seeking a declaration that she is the only legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian and for a permanent injunction restraining anybody else from receiving the death benefits of the said Balasubramanian from the office of the 1st to 5th defendants/Education Department. The said suit was dismissed by Judgement dated 21.03.2000. 3. The plaintiff then filed the First Appeal in A.S.No. 17 of 2000 before the Sub Court at Tirupur. The said Appeal suit was also dismissed by Judgment dated 30.10.2000. She then preferred the present Second Appeal. 4. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in non-suiting the plaintiff by holding that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balasubramanian without properly adverting to Ex.A-1 to A-4 documents and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to PW 4 in its true perspective?; 2. Whether in law the mere nomination of the eleventh respondent by the deceased in the service register will cloth the said respondent for the entitlement of the retirement and other benefits of the deceased to the exclusion of the appellant herein when the said respondent has failed to prove her alleged marriage with the deceased in a manner known to law?; 3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellant herein is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased by rejecting the evidence of PW2 and PW4 who have spoken about the marriage and who are independent witnesses without assigning any proper reasons.” O.S.No. 226 of 1997 – District Munsif Court, Tirupur: 5. The plaintiff B.Subatra claimed that she was married with Balasubramanian, son of Ramasamy Chettiyar in accordance with the customary practice of 24, Manai Telugu Chettiyars on 20.05.1964. The plaintiff B.Subatra claimed that she was married with Balasubramanian, son of Ramasamy Chettiyar in accordance with the customary practice of 24, Manai Telugu Chettiyars on 20.05.1964. The marriage was presided by a former State Legislative Assembly Member P.S.Chinnadurai. After marriage, Balasubramanian was appointed as a teacher in a municipal school of Mettupalayam. They did not have any children. After about six years, she went to stay with her brothers. Balasubramanian later worked as teacher in Nanjappa Higher Secondary School at Tirupur. He died on 04.04.1997. He left behind as his legal heirs, the plaintiff and his mother, the 10th defendant Govindammal. The plaintiff applied to the Headmistress in Nanjappa Higher Secondary School to pay the death benefits to her. She also issued an Advocate notice on 23.04.1997. 6. It was further stated that the 11th defendant Lalitha who was Headmistress in Chellapuram Municipal Primary School, Tirupur claimed that she was the wife of Balasubramanian and had also obtained a legal heirship certificate and was taking efforts to receive the death benefits. It was stated that the plaintiff and the 10th defendant alone are the legal representatives of Balasubramanian and therefore the suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife and for injunction restraining anybody from receiving the death benefits of Balasubramanian. 7. The 4th defendant/Headmistress of Nanjappa Municipal Higher Secondary School, filed a written statement stating that during his lifetime Balasubramnian participated in school functions along with the 11th defendant Lalitha as his wife. Even in the service register, he endorsed that after his lifetime the 11th defendant Lalitha as his nominee and as legal heir which entires have been registered in the service register on 05.04.1978 before the Tirupur Municipality Office. He had also joined her for the Group Insurance Scheme. It was therefore stated that the 11th defendant was the legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian and it was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 8. The 8th defendant/Life Insurance Corporation, Tirupur stated that the amounts under the LIC policy would be disbursed only to the nominee in accordance with the rules. 9. The 11th defendant Lalitha filed a written statement denying that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian. She claimed that the plaintiff had never lived with Balasubramanian. 8. The 8th defendant/Life Insurance Corporation, Tirupur stated that the amounts under the LIC policy would be disbursed only to the nominee in accordance with the rules. 9. The 11th defendant Lalitha filed a written statement denying that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian. She claimed that the plaintiff had never lived with Balasubramanian. She also stated that the intention of the plaintiff is evident from the fact that within 23 days of the death of Balasubramanian, the plaintiff had written letters preventing disbursement of the death benefits to anybody. She claimed that she was entitled for the death benefits as nominee and as legal heir as reflected in the service register of Balasubramanian. This written statement was also adopted by the 10th defendant/mother of Balasubramanian. They both claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “(i) Whether the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian?; (ii) Whether the legal heirship certificate issued to the 11th defendant dated 10.04.1997 is a valid document?; (iii) Whether the suit is maintainable against the 8th defendant?; and (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction?.” 11. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and also examined three other witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4. The 11th defendant examined herself as DW-2 and the 10th defendant was examined as DW- 4. Two other witnesses were examined as DW-1 and DW-3. 12. The plaintiff marked Exs. A-1 to A-8. Ex.A-1 was the certificate given by P.S. Chinnadurai regarding the marriage of the plaintiff, Ex.A-2 and A-4 were voter election list, Ex.A-5 to A-8 were notices issued to the defendants. 13. On the side of the defendants Exs. B-1 to B-9 were marked. Ex.B-1 was the service register of Balasubramanian, Ex.B-2 was the death information given in Dinamalar Newspaper about the death of Balasubramanian, Ex.B-3 was the marriage agreement for the children of 11th defendant, Ex.B-4 and B-5 were the voter election card, Ex.B-6 was the legal heirship certificate and Ex.B-9 was the ration card of Balasubramanian. 14. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif found that the marriage between the plaintiff and Balasubramanian was not established in manner known to law. 14. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif found that the marriage between the plaintiff and Balasubramanian was not established in manner known to law. It was stated that only Ex.A-1 was produced but the author of Ex.A-1 was not examined as a witness. It was also found that in the service register in Ex.B-1, Balasubramanian had nominated the 11th defendant as his legal heir. It was also stated that since all the documents reflected the 11th defendant alone as being the wife of Balasubramanian, the claim of the plaintiff to be declared as legally wedded wife has to be rejected and her claim for permanent injunction was also rejected. In effect the suit was dismissed. A.S.No. 17 of 2000 – Sub Court, Tiruppur: 15. Questioning the Judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed aforementioned First Appeal. The learned Sub Judge, Tirupur by Judgment dated 30.10.2000, framed the following points for consideration:- “(i) whether the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court is valid in law?; and (ii) to what reliefs are the parties entitled to?” 16. The learned First Appellate Judge once again re-examined the evidence and the entries in the service register. It was also noted that Balasubramanian had also taken special casual leave for an operation for his wife Tmt. V.Lalitha, Headmistress, Elementary School, Mangalam Road. It was also found that in the official records, Balasubramanian had nominated only the 11th defendant as his wife. The First Appellate court also took note of the evidence of DW-4, mother of Balasubramanian, who stated that the 11th defendant Lalitha was the only legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian. The 11th defendant in her evidence also denied that the plaintiff was married to Balasubramanian. In view of the evidence so recorded, the First Appellate Court dismissed the First Appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. S.A.No. 1861 of 2001: 17. The unsuccessful plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in non-suiting the plaintiff by holding that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balasubramanian without properly adverting to Ex.A-1 to A-4 documents and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to PW 4 in its true perspective? 2. Whether the Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in non-suiting the plaintiff by holding that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balasubramanian without properly adverting to Ex.A-1 to A-4 documents and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to PW 4 in its true perspective? 2. Whether in law the mere nomination of the eleventh respondent by the deceased in the service register will cloth the said respondent for the entitlement of the retirement and other benefits of the deceased to the exclusion of the appellant herein when the said respondent has failed to prove her alleged marriage with the deceased in a manner known to law? 3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellant herein is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased by rejecting the evidence of PW2 and PW4 who have spoken about the marriage and who are independent witnesses without assigning any proper reasons.” 18. It must also be noted that the 10th and 11th respondents died. Their legal representatives had not been brought on record. A memo had been filed in this regard and the Second Appeal has been dismissed as abated against the 10th and 11th respondents. 19. The first substantial question of law is whether the Courts had not properly appreciated Exs.A-1 and A-4 and the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. 20. It is to be stated that any document which is produced before the Court of law has to pass the tests of admissibility, proof and relevancy. Ex.A-1 is a certificate given by one M.P.Chinnarasu, Former MLA of the that consistency. He claimed that he presided over the marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased Balasubramanian. However, he was not examined as a witness. In the absence of his direct evidence, A-1 cannot be stated to have been proved in manner known to law. That is the only document produced by the appellant relating to the fact of marriage between her and Balasubramanian. Ex.A-2 is a voter identity card. This is issued by the Government on information given. Therefore, it is a self serving document. Ex.A-3 is the electoral list for the general elections in the year 1995. Again this is based on information given and cannot be taken as proof of marriage. Ex.A-4 is yet another electoral list for Dharapuram Assembly Election of the year 1999. This is issued by the Government on information given. Therefore, it is a self serving document. Ex.A-3 is the electoral list for the general elections in the year 1995. Again this is based on information given and cannot be taken as proof of marriage. Ex.A-4 is yet another electoral list for Dharapuram Assembly Election of the year 1999. Again this cannot prove the marriage between the appellant and Balasubramanian. The witnesses on behalf of the appellant were all relatives and though they stated about the marriage of the appellant and Balasubramanian, such evidence will have to considered in juxtaposition with Ex.B-1, the service register where it had been very clearly stated that the 11th defendant was the wife of Balasubramanian. That being an Official document therefore gains precedence and will have to be preserved as having been prepared in the course of official duty. Therefore, I hold that the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and also Exs. A-1 to A-4 and have correctly dismissed the suit and rejected the claim of the appellant. 21. The second substantial question of law is with respect to the nomination of the 11th defendant in the service register. The service register is an official document. The entries therein are made in the course of official act and a presumption has to be drawn under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act that it had been regularly prepared. Thus, a natural conclusion can be drawn that entries in the service register are correct. Moreover Balasubramanian is an educated man. He had consciously nominated as his wife the 11th defendant in his service register. Further, the 10th defendant his mother had also affirmed that the 11th defendant was the legally wedded wife of Balasubramanian. The 10th defendant had denied the fact of marriage between the appellant and Balasubramanian. Therefore, I hold with respect to the second substantial question of law that the nomination in the service register will give credence to the 11th defendant to claim to be the wife of Balasubramanian. 22. The third substantial question of law is the rejection of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. This aspect actually over laps the first substantial question of law. Both PW-2 and PW-4 are relatives of the plaintiff. They would and can only state that the plaintiff was actually married to Balasubramanian. 22. The third substantial question of law is the rejection of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. This aspect actually over laps the first substantial question of law. Both PW-2 and PW-4 are relatives of the plaintiff. They would and can only state that the plaintiff was actually married to Balasubramanian. It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove her marriage. She had not proved her marriage. She cannot rely on the evidence of other witnesses to hold that she is the legally married to Balasubramanian. I would therefore hold that the Courts below have correctly rejected the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. 23. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, I hold that the Second Appeal will have to be dismissed and accordingly, it is 16 dismissed. 24. In the result, (i) The Second Appeal is dismissed against 1st to 9th respondents, however in the circumstances of the case, without costs; (ii) The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated against 10th and 11th respondents; (iii) The Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2000 in A.S.No. 17 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur, is confirmed; and (iv) The Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2000 in O.S.No. 226 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Tirupur.