JUDGMENT : B. SYAMSUNDER, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 239 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, is the appellant. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Originally suit was filed by the appellant against respondents seeking relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Karapureddi Apparao and register her name in the records of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The appellant and the respondents herein after referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration of her status as the wife of late K. Apparao with a pleading that D1 Bathla Nookaratnam, who is also claiming to be the wife of late K. Apparao, is not legally wedded to late K. Apparao. 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao, who worked as permanent Kalasi in I.O.W. Office, South Central Railway, Tuni, who died in service on 31.01.1998 in a road accident. She submits that after the death of her husband K. Apparao, railway authorities have paid Rs. 2,500/- to her towards funeral expenses and they obtained her thumb impressions in token of paying amount and also obtained her thumb impressions for settlement of other death benefits of her husband. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that D1 is not the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and D1 filed M.C. No. 1 of 1984 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni, against one Bathula Veerraju son of B. Surya Rao, worked as Diesel Assistant Driver, South Central Railway, Rajahmundry, claiming maintenance to herself and her daughter Raghava being a minor wherein Court granted maintenance to the daughter only, holding that daughter of D1 is an illegitimate child born to D1 through B. Veerraju. The plaintiff submits that she approached D5 for death benefits of her husband, who promised to pay the same as per rules but failed to pay and on her enquiry she came to know that D1 made an application to D2 to D5 claiming death benefits of late K. Apparao stating that she is the legally wedded wife. 5. The plaintiff submits that she approached D5 for death benefits of her husband, who promised to pay the same as per rules but failed to pay and on her enquiry she came to know that D1 made an application to D2 to D5 claiming death benefits of late K. Apparao stating that she is the legally wedded wife. 5. The plaintiff submits that she issued legal notice dated 21.06.1998 to D-2 to D-5 enclosing the documents showing proof that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao but not D-1, which were received by them except D4 and failed to give any reply. The plaintiff also claimed that her name is entered in the records of South Central Railway from 1990 to 1997 in the self declaration given by late K. Apparao as his wife. She filed suit for declaration of her status as a wife of late K. Apparao. 6. The 1st defendant resisted the claim of plaintiff by filing written statement stating that she is not aware of proceedings in M.C. No. 1 of 1984 and she is no way concerned with the said Maintenance Case proceedings. The 1st defendant claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and she submitted application to D2 to D5 for grant of death benefits. She pleaded that mother of late K. Apparao by name Smt. K. Mahalakshmi is alive. She is also necessary party to the suit and specifically pleaded that as per contents of the plaint, the plaintiff name is already in railway records and the suit is unnecessarily filed for the same relief. She prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The 3rd defendant filed written statement admitting the fact that late K. Apparao worked as a Kalasi in South Central Railway, who died on 31.01.1998 while he was in service and they paid Rs. 2,500/- to plaintiff towards funeral expenses. They also stated that late K. Apparao furnished the name of plaintiff as his wife and K. Mahalaxmi as his widowed mother in provident fund nomination form and also in Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme. They have specifically pleaded that the name of D1 not find place in the railway records and as late K. Apparao nominated the plaintiff as his wife to receive family pension, they cannot pay retirement benefits to D1. They have specifically pleaded that the name of D1 not find place in the railway records and as late K. Apparao nominated the plaintiff as his wife to receive family pension, they cannot pay retirement benefits to D1. They also stated that there is an attachment order dated 16.11.1998 of leave salary of late K. Apparao to an extent of a sum of Rs. 17,783/- in E.A. No. 72 of 1998 in E.P. No. 18 of 1998 in O.S. No. 140 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Tuni. 8. The Trial Court basing on the above pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for? (iii) To what relief? 9. The parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined, and Exhibits.A1 to A15 were marked. On behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 5, DW-1 was examined and Exhibits C1 to C3 were marked. On behalf of defendant No. 1, she herself examined as D1 and got examined DWs. 3 to 6 and marked Exhibits B6 to B8. 10. On the material and evidence, the Trial court held that plaintiff is able to prove that she is legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and decreed the suit. 11. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, D1 preferred A.S. No. 17 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pitapuram, which was allowed by the 1st Appellate Judge setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 12. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is presented. 13. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Satya, representing on behalf of Mr. D.V. Sita Ram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Mallempalli Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 14. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of her status which was decreed by Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff, but 1st Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the suit on wrong application of law and facts. G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 14. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of her status which was decreed by Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff, but 1st Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the suit on wrong application of law and facts. He would further submit that First Appellate Judge failed to consider Exhibit.A9 which clearly shows that D1 filed Maintenance Case showing as a wife of one B. Veerraju and the said deposition is erroneously rejected by Appellate Judge. He argued that PW-1 has categorically deposed the date of her marriage in her cross examination which failed to consider by the learned Appellate Judge and proving the marriage which took place long back is not possible and it is suffice for the plaintiff to prove that herself and late K. Apparao lived as husband and wife for a considerable period, which raises a presumption of valid marriage. He relied upon a Judgment in the case of Subash Popatlal Shal vs. Lata Subhash Shah, MANU/MH/0006/1994 wherein the learned counsel relied on ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, MANU/SC/0004/1978 which was discussed in the said Judgment and held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a strong presumption arises in favour of valid marriage where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him, who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy” it is also held that “if a man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few will succeed.” He prays to allow the Second Appeal. 15. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, contended that records maintained by railway department shows that plaintiff’s name is shown as wife of late K. Apparao, and she is also shown as nominee of insurance benefit of late K. Apparao and department has paid funeral expenses amount to plaintiff. 15. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, contended that records maintained by railway department shows that plaintiff’s name is shown as wife of late K. Apparao, and she is also shown as nominee of insurance benefit of late K. Apparao and department has paid funeral expenses amount to plaintiff. He would further submit that railway department is ready to pay death benefits to the person who will be declared as legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao and they will obey the orders of the Court in respect of legal status of parties. 16. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 mainly submits that plaintiff who filed suit seeking declaratory relief under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, has to succeed on her own strength without depending upon the weeknesses in the defence of D1. He would further submit that as rightly pointed out by the learned Appellate Judge, there is no pleading in the plaint when marriage of plaintiff solemnized with late K. Apparao and date of marriage also not pleaded in the plaint which rightly observed by learned Appellate Judge. He argued that plaintiff failed to prove with preponderance of probabilities that she is the legally wedded wife of late K. Apparao. He prays to dismiss the Second Appeal. 17. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law raised at ground No. 14 (a)(b) which are: (a) Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree and judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that there was no pleading as to the date and place of her marriage with late K. Apparao without considering documentary evidence in exhibit A1-A15 documents, which establish that she was the wife of appellant. (b) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the decree and judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff did not submit any proof of her marriage despite exhibit A1 to A15? 18. The principles under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code are well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narayana Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) through LRs. vs. Bisaram and Others in Civil Appeal No. 6124/2011 judgment dated 17.12.2021 wherein it is explained the circumstances under which High Court determine issue of fact. The principles of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Bisaram and Others in Civil Appeal No. 6124/2011 judgment dated 17.12.2021 wherein it is explained the circumstances under which High Court determine issue of fact. The principles of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and Others vs. Saraswati and Others in Civil Appeal No. NIL/2022 and SLP (C) No. 8736 of 2016 dated 22.09.2022 at Para No. 33, which reads as under: “the principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with finding of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with finding of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence” it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 19. As per Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court can interfere with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by First Appellate Court is binding on this Court unless there is any error of law in such findings. Under what circumstances, finding of fact can also be interfered with, in view of Section 103 of Civil Procedure Code, is explained by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik vs. Bisaram and Others referred Supra. 20. As per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and Others vs. Saraswati and Others referred supra as point No. 1 is relevant to the facts of the present case, which is as follows: “When an inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact, but the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principles of law is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconception of a document or wrong application of principle of law in constructing a document. It gives rise to a question of law.” 21. Construction of a document involving the application of any principles of law is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconception of a document or wrong application of principle of law in constructing a document. It gives rise to a question of law.” 21. On perusal of judgment of learned First Appellate Court which shows that which mainly reversed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that date of marriage of plaintiff is not pleaded in the plaint and Exhibit.A9 C.C. of deposition of D1 in M.C. No. 1 of 1984 cannot be taken into consideration on the ground that it is nowhere stated by D1 that she is the wife of one B. Veerraju and deposition of living person cannot be considered. The learned Appellate Judge failed to consider the scope of Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also failed to peruse Exhibit.A9 deposition of DW-2/D1, wherein she categorically stated that she married the respondent therein i.e. B. Veerraju, when he was working in Tuni, Railway Station, with whom she developed intimacy about 15 years back and got children. She also specifically denied the suggestion that she got illicit intimacy with one late K. Apparao (the dispute is with regard to the death benefits of late K. Apparao) and begot three children. The said important piece of evidence is failed to consider by the learned Appellate Judge simply on the ground that the deposition of living person cannot be considered. When deposition of DW-2 shows that a specific question put to her in cross examination with regard to filing of M.C. No. 1 of 1984, which she denied though not denied that one Raghava is her daughter. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff who filed suit for declaratory relief under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, has to prove her case on her own strength without depending upon weaknesses in D1’s case. To prove that she is the wife of late K. Apparao, the plaintiff has produced Exhibits.A1-A15 and also examined PW-2 to PW-6 and she specifically deposed her date of marriage with late K. Apparao. To prove that she is the wife of late K. Apparao, the plaintiff has produced Exhibits.A1-A15 and also examined PW-2 to PW-6 and she specifically deposed her date of marriage with late K. Apparao. The contention of plaintiff is supported by declaration given by late K. Apparao before D2 to D5 authorities which also deposed by DW-1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff are with regard to the status of plaintiff as wife of late K. Apparao, who himself declared her as his wife when no litigation is thought of, which failed to consider by the learned First Appellate Judge. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the appellant that when a man and woman lived together as husband and wife for a long period, there is a statutory presumption of valid marriage and there is no possibility of proving marriage performed with all rituals as required under Hindu Marriage Act, when marriage falls for judicial scrutiny half a century later which was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for appellant. The plaintiff not only proved that she has been shown as a wife of late K. Apparao in service records produced by DW-1 but also demonstrated that D1 is shown as wife of one B. Veerraju and she also instituted M.C. No. 1 of 1984 claiming maintenance being a wife of B. Veerraju and she filed exhibit A13-copy of ration card of D1 showing her photograph being a wife of B. Veerraju. 22. The learned First Appellate Judge failed to consider the contents in the documents, which raises presumption of valid marriage between plaintiff and late K. Apparao, which is a substantial question of law and can be examined by this Court while invoking jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. 23. The learned First Appellate Judge with erroneous application of law and facts, came to wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and reversed the well reasoned judgment of learned Trial Judge. 24. Therefore, in the circumstances and discussions held supra, accepting the contention of the appellant, the Second Appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the 1st Appellate Court restoring the decree of the Trial Court. 25. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. 24. Therefore, in the circumstances and discussions held supra, accepting the contention of the appellant, the Second Appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the 1st Appellate Court restoring the decree of the Trial Court. 25. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the decree and Judgment dated 19.04.2006 in A.S. No. 17 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pitapuram are set aside. The decree and judgment dated 24.02.2004 passed in O.S. No. 239 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Tuni, stands restored. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 26. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated.