JUDGMENT : (RENUKA YARA, J.) Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3, Smt. Vani Kandarpa, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, dated 05.12.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012, whereby the suit filed for declaring respondent No.1/plaintiff as legal heir of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar has been decreed. Further, decreed that respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled for the death benefits and directed respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6 to release the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.174 of 2012. Facts of the case: 4. Defendant No.1 is the 1 st wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Defendant No.1 was married to Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar on 14.03.1982 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 were born on 25.04.1985 and 11.06.1990 respectively. Due to disputes, defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.42 of 1991 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. While so, Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar filed O.P.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram seeking dissolution of marriage. The said O.P was dismissed and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar preferred C.M.A.No.2341 of 1999 on the file of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the dismissal order. 5. When the said CMA was pending, Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar married the plaintiff on 19.04.2000 at Sri Raja Rajeswari Temple, Rotary Nagar, Khammam as per Hindu rites and customs. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed a criminal case vide C.C.No.293 of 2006 under Section 494 of Cr.P.C alleging that her husband married the plaintiff during subsistence of her marriage. While the things stood thus, in the year 2008, the elders have brought about settlement between defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar whereby Late Ravi Kumar paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 towards full and final settlement of their share in his properties. While the things stood thus, in the year 2008, the elders have brought about settlement between defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar whereby Late Ravi Kumar paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 towards full and final settlement of their share in his properties. In a reciprocal arrangement, defendant No.1 withdrew her bigamy case i.e. C.C.No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram. Further, by filing a memo, the CMA was allowed. The aforementioned settlement was presented before the Lok Adalat at Bheemavaram and an award was passed incorporating the terms of settlement. Meanwhile, as per the orders in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, the marriage between defendant No.1 and her husband was dissolved. Thus, defendant No.1 ceased to be wife of Late Ravi Kumar. Thereafter, on 03.12.2010, Varanasi Ravi Kumar died leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor. After the death of Ravi Kumar, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare her as the legal heir of Late Ravi Kumar and consequential relief of entitlement to seek death benefits and other emoluments of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. 6. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 made appearance before the trial Court and filed written statement claiming to be legal heirs of Late Ravi Kumar. Further, denied the legal status of the plaintiff as wife of Late Ravi Kumar as her marriage with Late Ravi Kumar took place during the subsistence of the defendant No.1’s marriage with her husband. Defendant No.1 denied the marriage between the plaintiff and her husband and also relinquishing her share. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim death benefits of late Ravi Kumar as relinquishment is a nominal document which does not debar them from claiming the death benefits. 7. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and the same is adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 pleaded that they have no interest in the inter-se disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and are ready to pay death benefits to any person as directed by the Court. 8. 7. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and the same is adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 pleaded that they have no interest in the inter-se disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and are ready to pay death benefits to any person as directed by the Court. 8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, framed the following three issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as legal heir and successor of her husband Varanasi Ravi Kumar for entitlement of death benefits and other emoluments? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing D4 to D6 not to pay any amounts to D1 to D3? 3) To what relief? 9. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, witnesses PW1 to PW3 were examined and documents Ex.A1 to A11 marked. Per contra, defendant No.1 filed her chief examination affidavit but did not appear for cross examination. Any amount of time and opportunity given were not availed to lead evidence by defendant No.1. In the circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam closed the evidence of defendants and passed judgment on the basis of the evidence got adduced by the plaintiff declaring her as the legal heir of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar and directed defendant Nos.4 to 6 to release the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar in favour of the plaintiff. There were incidental proceedings of filing of Transfer petition vide Tr.O.P.No.429 of 2018 and the same were dismissed. Since no appeals are preferred, the impugned judgment and decree became final. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants. Contentions of the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3: 10. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam failed to consider the fact that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized on 19.04.2000 during subsistence of marriage between defendant No.1 with Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be declared as his successor or legal heir. As per service record of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, the name of defendant No.1 is entered as his nominee. As per service record of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, the name of defendant No.1 is entered as his nominee. Further, the service record shows defendant Nos.1 to 3 as nominees and therefore, no one else is entitled to receive the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar and their rights cannot be barred on the basis of Ex.A4 Award passed by the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Bheemavaram. Hence, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. Contentions of respondent No.1/plaintiff 11. Plaintiff contended that marriage between defendant No.1 and her husband is no longer in subsistence on account of various cases filed by both the parties followed by recording of the Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008. It is emphasized that as per the Lok Adalat award, a compromise was reached between the parties. It is further emphasized that the parties i.e. plaintiff and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar with his parents on one hand and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand have come to a compromise that Rs.8,00,000/- would be paid towards full and final settlement to defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is argued that as per said award, both parties agreed for withdrawal of CMA before the High Court and for getting consent divorce decree by filing memo and for withdrawal of the criminal case filed under Section 494 of IPC. The award has been recorded and therefore, argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam could not be set aside on technical grounds. Analysis of the Court: 12. The first and foremost point to be considered is that as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another , [ (1999) 3 SCC 573 ] , when a party to a suit does not present himself or herself for adducing oral evidence and to face cross examination, the pleadings cannot be considered. 13. In the instant case, defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein in spite of giving sufficient opportunity failed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam for leading oral evidence. 13. In the instant case, defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein in spite of giving sufficient opportunity failed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam for leading oral evidence. Defendant No.1 failed to enter the witness box to support her pleadings and therefore, the pleadings of the written statement are to be taken as nullity. Consequently, the matter has to be decided only on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff herself, defendant No.1 is the 1 st wife of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar having married him on 14.03.1982 and has given birth to defendant Nos.2 and 3 out of wed lock. Due to disputes, defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.42 of 1991 seeking maintenance and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar filed O.P.No.74 of 1995 seeking dissolution of marriage. The said M.C was allowed and the O.P was dismissed. Late Ravi Kumar was paying maintenance to defendant Nos.1 to 3. Subsequently, vide orders dated 28.10.2010 in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2010, the marriage between defendant No.1 and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar was dissolved. While the disputes and legal proceedings were pending before the various courts, Late Ravi Kumar married the plaintiff on 19.04.2000. After dissolution of the marriage on 28.10.2010, Late Ravi Kumar died on 03.12.2010. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as legal heir and entitlement to death benefits and emoluments of Late Ravi Kumar. 14. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff decreed the suit in her favour and the same is challenged by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 alleging that the marriage of the plaintiff with the deceased Ravi Kumar took place while the marriage between defendant No.1 and Late Ravi Kumar was subsisting. Further, it is the case of the defendants that the names of defendants are recorded in the service register and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the death benefits. This Court does not see any strength in the case of the defendants in the light of contents of the Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008 marked under Ex.A4. The Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008 makes it crystal clear that the defendants have agreed to settle all the legal disputes on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 as full and final settlement. The Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008 makes it crystal clear that the defendants have agreed to settle all the legal disputes on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 as full and final settlement. On payment of said amount, it is agreed between the parties that defendant No.1 would withdraw the criminal case registered under Section 494 of IPC and that she will file a memo before the Family Court for settling the said case with consent. For passing of a decree of divorce and that Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar would settle the case in C.M.A.No.2341 of 1999 before the High Court. 15. Upon recording of said award for all practical purposes, all the outstanding family, legal and monetary disputes between defendants and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar were settled. A Lok Adalat award carries with it a legal sanctity. Said award cannot be appealed and is final in nature. Defendant No.1 has asserted her rights and settled the matter before a competent forum and therefore, she cannot turn a blind eye to the undertaking given by her before the Lok Adalat and contest the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff. 16. In the instant case, the contents of the Lok Adalat award/Ex.A4 show that there was full and final settlement between the parties with no further claims by defendants against the plaintiff or Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. The only spoiler for the plaintiff has been death of Varanasi Ravi Kumar within two months of obtaining the decree of divorce with defendant No.1. Had Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar being alive, the question of giving his retirement benefits to his sons would be in doubt as there was a full and final settlement between the parties. 17. With regard to the names of defendants being recorded in the service register of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, it is to be seen that until the decree of divorce was passed on 28.10.2010, there was no occasion for Late Ravi Kumar to change the names of nominees. It is quiet probable that Late Ravi Kumar never anticipated his death within 1 month 5 days of obtaining decree of divorce. There would have been no occasion for him to change the name of nominees in his service register. It is quiet probable that Late Ravi Kumar never anticipated his death within 1 month 5 days of obtaining decree of divorce. There would have been no occasion for him to change the name of nominees in his service register. In view of the undertaking given by the defendants before a competent forum like Lok Adalat, since the Lok Adalat award is final which cannot be appealed, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the undertakings given by the respective parties while settling of the disputes. In view of the Lok Adalat Award dated 20.09.2008, obtaining a decree of divorce dissolution was mere a formality. Only on technical ground that the decree of dissolution was not passed as on the date of marriage of plaintiff with Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, there is no other ground to seek any relief by defendant Nos.1 to 3. 18. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 with full knowledge about the undertaking given by them before the Lok Adalat are obstructing the benefits to be accrued by the plaintiff on hyper technical grounds. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are under legal obligation to abide by the undertaking given by them before the Lok Adalat i.e. receipt of Rs.8,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. The appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 cannot claim any other benefits subsequently only by taking advantage of death of Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Khammam, dated 05.12.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012. 19. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.