The presumption of a valid marriage can be drawn based on long co-habitation and repute, and can only be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary.

( 1 ) THE petitioner admittedly lived with late Narasimha Reddy as a woman and man for over thirty five years and be executed a will before his death. Thereafter, escheat proceedings were initiated at the behest of the fourth respondent. The Tahsildar has held in his proceedings dated september 6, 1978, that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife, drawing the presumption of a valid marriage, due to their living together for a long period of over thirty five years. On appeal, at the instance of the fourth respondent again, the appellate authority held that since there is no legal marriage, the presumption of valid marriage cannot be drawn. On that ground, allowed the appeal and set aside the order declaring the property to be escheat. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) PENDING proceedings before the Tahsildar, the petitioner filedos 193/76. 67/77, and 116/78. The fourth respondent also filed OS No. 118/78. The trial Court by judgment dated August 10, 1981, held that the presumption of a valid marriage can be drawn in view of the petitioner s continued living for over thirtyfive years with the deceased Narasimha Reddy but negatived the relief on the ground that the will has not been properly proved. The matter has been carried in appeals. The suit of the fourth respondent was dismissed and the decree became final. The appeals, AS Nos. 168, 169 and 170 of 1981, were disposed of by a common judgment dated august 17, 1987, by the Additional District Judge, Anantapur. In that issue no. 2 relates to the legal status of the petitioner and issue No. 3 relates to the validity of the will. The appellate authority has held that there is sufficient and clinching evidence on record that she is not the legally wedded wife of late Narasimha Reddy and she cannot acquire the status of legally wedded wife to late Narasimha Reddy. The lower Court without properly understanding the dicta laid down in the various decisions laid down before it, erroneously answered that she is living with Narasimha Reddy tor a considerable period, drew the inference that she is the wife of Narasimha reddy. On that premise, the finding of the trial Court was negatived. Now, in view of the Bench judgment of this Court reported in K. Pitchaiah vs. G. Subba Reddy the presumption of valid marriage can be drawn when the woman and the man lived together for a long period, though proof of valid marriage has not been established by clinching evidence. Jayachandra reddy, J. , speaking for the Bench, held : "initially a presumption can be drawn in favour of the marriage because of long co-habitation but the same can be rebutted. The subsistence of the earlier marriage can be one such strong circumstance of rebuttal. but in a given case the evidence and circumstances can be there to the effect that the earlier marriage is no longer subsisting. Such an inference can be gathered from the various circumstances like custom, etc. , including oral evidence available on record. " it was further held in the above case : "it has been accepted that a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the validity of marriage because of long co-habitation and repute and that such a presumption will have to be rebutted by cogent and strong evidence to the contrary. " in view of the Division Bench judgment, the finding of the appellate Court that the presumption cannot be drawn is not valid in law and the Tahsildar s finding that the presumption of valid marriage can be drawn is valid. Even otherwise, the appellate Court found as regards the execution of the will that the will is valid and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the will. In view of this finding also, even excluding, for a moment, of the consideration of the legal status, she is entitled to the property as the succession is by testamentary succession.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed, the appellate order isset aside and the order of the primary authority i