Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- The short question that arises for consideration in this plaintiffs appeal directed against judgment and order of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court restoring that of the trial Court and dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration and possession over the land in dispute is if the High Court was justified in interfering with the presumption drawn by the Appellate Court of valid marriage arising out of prolonged living together of a man and woman as husband and wife.

2. Manthi, admittedly, had three sons one of them being Chinathambi. His legally wedded wife was one Pavayee. He also lived with another woman, whose name, too, was Pavayee. From the second Pavayee he had issues one of them being Ramaswamy. He sold his one third share, which he received from his father, in 1971 to the appellant. This was resisted by descendants of other two branches. The appellant therefore filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Two main questions arose one - if Ramaswamy was legitimate child of Chinathambi, second - the property being ancestral and coparcenary property bequeathed