JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order in O.P.No.140 of 2005, dtd. 10/6/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. 2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein were the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein were the respondents before the trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after will be referred to as arrayed before the Trail Court. 4. The case of the petitioners in brief is that:- (a) The marriage of the 1st petitioner/Dukkipati Lakshmidevi, took place with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah on 23/5/1973, as per Hindu rites and customs at Nimbagallu Village of Vidapanakal Mandal of Anantapur District, at parent's house of the 1st petitioner. Out of their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner/Dukkipati Chandrasekhar and 3rd petitioner/Dukkipati Gangadhar were born. (b) The deceased/Late D.Venkataiah worked as a Line man in A.P.State Electricity Board and died on 4/10/2005 at Chennekothapalli Village. During the life time of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, due to disputes the petitioners approached the Legal Services Authority by filing Pre Litigation Case No.1056 of 2003. An award was passed since the matter was compromised. As per the terms of the Award, the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the 1st petitioner/Dukkipati Lakshmidevi on 16/7/2004. After the death of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, the petitioners approached the respondent Nos.2 to 6 seeking the death benefits and also the deposits made in various banks. But, the respondents refused the request stating that the deposits contain the names of others as nominees. (c) At this juncture, the petitioners filed a petition under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for issuance of the Sucession Certificate, in their favour relating to the amounts of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. 5. The attack of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma over the claim of the petitioners in nutshell is that:- (a) The 1st respondent denied the case of the petitioner's interalia contending that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah was the second issue to his parents. He had a elder sister/Maha Lakshmamma, who brought up the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah at her residence at Noonepalli, Nandyala Town, Kurnool District. (b) She had two daughters i.e., 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma and Rangadevi. While so, her cousin Alladi Rangamma brought up the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma to Ayyaluru Village. He had a elder sister/Maha Lakshmamma, who brought up the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah at her residence at Noonepalli, Nandyala Town, Kurnool District. (b) She had two daughters i.e., 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma and Rangadevi. While so, her cousin Alladi Rangamma brought up the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma to Ayyaluru Village. She performed the marriage of 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah on 11/3/1980, as per the Hindu rites and customs at her residence in Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The couple blessed with a male child, namely Dukkipati Venkatramana/respondent No.7 on 16/1/1973. The deceased/Late D.Venkataiah used to visit his wife and son at Ayyaluru. He performed the marriage of his son/Dukkipati Venkatramana. The 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah and was residing with her husband for three (03) years at Chennekothapalli (C.K.Palli in short) Village and twelve years in another house. (c) The 1st respondent further stated that when she came to Kurnool for taking treatment, the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah found dead in suspicious circumstances in the house. She gave a report to the police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.89 of 2005, dtd. 5/10/2005 for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She has been paid funeral expenses of Rs.2000.00 by the Electricity Department and she brought the dead body of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah to Ayyalur Village and buried the dead body of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. She also performed all the obsequies to the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah at Ayyalur Village. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Enquiry-Finding:- (a) In order to substantiate the contentions on behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi herself was examined as PW1 and the colleague of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were the documents marked. The 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma was examined as RW1 and her son respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana was examined as RW2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were the documents marked. (b) Having heard the both counsel and on appreciation of the evidence and other material on record, the learned Judge held that the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma and respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana and petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar are entitled for Sucession Certificate. The claim pertaining to the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmi Devi was dismissed. 7. Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were the documents marked. (b) Having heard the both counsel and on appreciation of the evidence and other material on record, the learned Judge held that the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma and respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana and petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar are entitled for Sucession Certificate. The claim pertaining to the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmi Devi was dismissed. 7. Grounds of Appeal:- (a) Having been aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal on the grounds that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective. The documents filed by the petitioners ie., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were not appreciated properly. (b) On the other hand, the document filed by the respondent ie., Ex.R7 does not reveal the name of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah as a father. The documents relating to Pre Litigation Case No.1056 of 2003 clearly establishes the case of the petitioner's. The learned Judge erroneously held that the 1st petitioner is not the legally wedded wife, since name of 1st respondent is mentioned as nominee in the Bank deposits, which cannot give her the status as legally wedded wife. (c). The evidence of PW2/Mahaboob Peera, who worked along with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah in the Electricity Department clearly establishes the fact that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife. 8. Heard Sri.N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Points for determination:- Now the points that would emerge for determination:- 1. "Whether the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah and petitioner Nos. 2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar are the children's of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah"? 2. "Whether the impugned order is sustainable on facts and law or any interference warranted in Appeal"? 10. Arguments at the Bar:- (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Award passed by the District Legal Services Authority in Pre Litigation Case No.1056 of 2003 moved by the petitioners against the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah would clearly revealed the marriage of the 1st petitioner with deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, which took place on 23/5/1973 at Nimbagallu Village. The petitioner Nos. 2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar were born to the couple during their wedlock. Ex.P5 is the copy of the registered Gift Deed, dtd. 16/7/2004 would show that in pursuance of the compromise arrived under Ex.P4, the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah gifted the property to the petitioners. The petitioner Nos. 2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar were born to the couple during their wedlock. Ex.P5 is the copy of the registered Gift Deed, dtd. 16/7/2004 would show that in pursuance of the compromise arrived under Ex.P4, the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah gifted the property to the petitioners. On the other hand, the Transfer Certificate filed by the respondent, which is marked as Ex.R7, does not disclose the name of the father of respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana as the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. Anyone can be placed as a nominee for the deposits since the nominee is meant for collecting the deposit amount in case of any contingency. (b) Refuting the arguments referred to above, the learned counsel for respondents would submit that no marriage took place between 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi and the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. The documents filed along with the petition are fabricated one. The marriage of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma took place on 11/3/1980 with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. The respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana was born on 16/1/1973 to the couple. There are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage took place with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah on 23/5/1973 at Nimbagallu Village of Vidapankal Mandal of Anantapur District. Per Contra, the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma says that her marriage took place with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah on 11/3/1980. Except the oral evidence, which is Oath against Oath, no document is placed on record to show that the marriage of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah took place with the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma on 11/3/1980. 12. The counter says that, they have filed lagnapatrika written by K.Lakshminarasaiah, Purohit dtd. 1/3/1970. The record shows no such document has been marked on behalf of the respondents. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW1/D.Lakshmidevi coupled with Ex.P4. Award passed in Public Litigation Case No.1056 of 2023, would show that the marriage of the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi held with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah on 23/5/1973. Ex.P4 further shows that petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Shekar and 3/D.Gangadhar are the children of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. 13. A careful scrutiny of Ex.P4 reveals that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah appeared before the Authority and accepted his relation with the first petitioner as wife and petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Shekar and 3/D.Gangadhar are his son's. Ex.P4 further shows that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah deserted the petitioners since 1990. 14. But, there is no whisper in Ex.P4 as to taking of any divorce. 13. A careful scrutiny of Ex.P4 reveals that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah appeared before the Authority and accepted his relation with the first petitioner as wife and petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Shekar and 3/D.Gangadhar are his son's. Ex.P4 further shows that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah deserted the petitioners since 1990. 14. But, there is no whisper in Ex.P4 as to taking of any divorce. Ex.P5 was executed by the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. In pursuance of the terms of the compromise, Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 would show that the father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. 15. It is beneficial to extract Sec. 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act; Sec. 32 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 "32 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc ., is relevant. -Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following case:- ...5 or relates to existence of relationship. -When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons as to whose relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raise". 16. In Nallagondla Kanthamma V. Nallagondla Rajyam and others, 2004 (1) ALT 450 (S.B.) the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Hyderabad, para 19 as follows:- "19. As already referred to supra, the fact that the plaintiff is the first wife had been established. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased husband Penchalaiah never had divorced the first wife and hence the evidence of D.W.5 relating to the fact of remarriage of the first wife is of no consequence since the legal status of the plaintiff is in no way changed, affected or altered by the said fact. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased husband Penchalaiah never had divorced the first wife and hence the evidence of D.W.5 relating to the fact of remarriage of the first wife is of no consequence since the legal status of the plaintiff is in no way changed, affected or altered by the said fact. In view of Sec. 5(1) of the Act, read with Sec. 11 of the Act, it is clear that when the first wife was living, the deceased Penchalaiah married the 3rd defendant, who is the second wife, and hence the second wife cannot get the legal status of a wife so as to be entitled to the benefits of the deceased Penchalaiah, The mere fact that her name was furnished by the deceased Penchalaiah and had been entered in service records will not alter the situation in any way in view of the clear legal position. Hence, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that both the widows i.e., the second wife also is entitled to the benefits of the deceased husband has no legs to stand and cannot be sustained. It is no doubt brought to my notice that one of the children being no more, the second wife being the mother, is entitled to the share of the benefits to which the deceased child might have been entitled to in law. This fact is not in dispute. Now, as far as the children of the second wife through her husband are concerned, by virtue of Sec. 16 of the Act, they are entitled to the benefits of the deceased father. Sec. 16 of the Act reads as hereunder: "(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Sec. 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act". 17. 17. In the back drop of the legal position, referred to supra, the statement of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah relating to his relation with the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmi devi as wife during his life time made in Ex.P4 is a relevant fact. Ex.P4 has got credence. It will have a better value than any other anything else, since it happened during the life time of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah without any anticipation of future litigation. 18. It is not the case of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma that because her husband used to stay away from the family, he might have got illegal relation with the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmi devi. No plausable explanation coming from the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma as to the reason which drove the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah to enter into a compromise in Ex.P4 and executed a Gift Deed vide Ex.P5. The declaration of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah during his life time is relevant to the said evidence and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 cannot be rebutted by some few pieces of evidence, which is not possible to any person. When two persons approached the Court with imperfect title, the Court has to see who has better title. No contra document is filed falsifying Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. 19. Further more, PW2 who is colleague to the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah testified on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi is the wife and petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Shekar and 3/D.Gangadhar are the children of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. 20. The learned trial Judge heavily relied upon Ex.R7 ie., Transfer Certificate of respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana, which shows his Date of Birth as 16/1/1973. The learned Judge by looking into the said Date of Birth i.e., 16/1/1973 went on saying that without father there cannot be birth of the Respondent No.7 and opined that the marriage of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah might have happended earlier to that date. Accordingly, he believed the marriage of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. The learned Judge failed to look into the aspect that Ex.R7 which is the Transfer Certificate D.Venkataramana does not reveal the name of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah as his father. In the column of parents the name of 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma is written. 21. RW2, who is respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana, testified relating to Ex.R7 that the name of his mother was mentioned, since he was brought up by his mother alone. In the column of parents the name of 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma is written. 21. RW2, who is respondent No.7/D.Venkataramana, testified relating to Ex.R7 that the name of his mother was mentioned, since he was brought up by his mother alone. Such being the case though the Ex.R7 does not disclose the name of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, by the learned Judge is wrong in holding that the marriage of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah is a valid marriage, and the marriage of the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi, with the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah is subsequent to the said marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage which is void one. 22. Apart from Ex.R7, the other documents filed on behalf of the respondents are the photos, Compact Disc of the marriage and F.D.R certificates which show the name of the 1st respondent/Maha Lakshmamma. This Court is of the clear view that these documents would not establish a valid marriage between the 1st respondent and the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. Coming to the case of the petitioners, the evidence of PW1/D.Lakshmidevi and PW2/Mahaboob Peera coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 clinching to the fact that the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah married the 1st petitioner. 23. In the light of the aforementioned discussion and extenuating circumstances, the Appeal is liable to be allowed. The finding of the learned Judge needs to be modified. 24. Ergo, the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi being legally wedded wife of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Shekar and 3/D.Gangadhar being the sons of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, they are entitled for the death benefits and other amounts of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. It goes without saying respondent No.7 being the son of the deceased also entitled to his share along with the petitioners. 25. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.