A Gandharva form of marriage is valid if it is accompanied by the performance of the prescribed and customary marriage rites.

1. IN this testamentary suit one patal Sundari Devi is asking for Letters of Administration as in the case of intestacy in respect of the properties of debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased. The plaintiff's case is that about 30 years ago she and Debendra came to know each other at the residence of the plaintiff's mother in Duttabagan at belgachia. Intimacy grew up between the plaintiff and Debendra to which the plaintiff's mother objected. Thereupon Debendra brought the plaintiff to a flat in Simla and then to premises no. 53f, Masjid Bari Street. In both these places the plaintiff says that, she and Debendra were living as husband and wife. On the 24th March, 1945 Nagenrabala Devi the first wife of Debendra died. On me 27th June 1945, the plaintiff states Debendra married the plaintiff at the Nari Mangal Ashram in Calcutta and a marriage certificate was duly issued. On May 23, 1958, Debendra Nath Chowdhury died. The plaintiff applied on the 16th may, 1960 for grant of Letters of Administration to this Court. On the 8th August, 1960, Ashidharini Debya, sister of Debendranath Chowdhury filed a caveat on December 13, 1960. On the plaintiff's application the matter was marked as a contentious cause. Ashidharini did not survive to see this litigation to an end. She died on the 1st April, 1961. Her death was recorded on the 11th July, 1981 and fresh citations were ordered to be issued to the heirs of Ashidharini. These heirs filed caveat on the 5th October, 1961, but only Profulla Kumar Chakrabarty, a son of Ashidharini has filed an affidavit in support of the caveat and is the principal defendant in this suit.

2. LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of Profulla has raised only one issue viz: "is the plaintiff the legally married wife of Debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased ?"

Mr. Sambhu Ghose, learned counsel for Profulla Chakraborty has argued that on the evidence on record oral and documentary the Court ought to come to the conclusion that no ceremony had taken place on the 27th June, 1. 945. He has divided his arguments into several heads. His first point is that the conduct of the parties and their respective relations subsequent to June, 1945 suggests, that, there was no ceremony of marriage on the date alleged by the plaintiff. There is no letter, submits Mr. Ghose, after June 1945, written by debendranath Chowdhury wherein the plaintiff has been mentioned. There is no letter from any of the members of the family or Debendra to the plaintiff. It is said that Nabani Chowdhury, a nephew of Debendra was brought up by the plaintiff since his childhood as he used to prosecute his studies in Calcutta (vide plaintiff's evidence Questions 95 and 154. But there is no letter from Nabani either after June, 1945. That it is strange that not a single relation of Debendra Nath chowdhury has come to pledge his oath on the witness box in support of the marriage. Lastly, Mr. Ghose points out that Ex. "g" which is a letter from dendwa dated the 14th May, 1958 to the plaintiff's brother Krishna Prosad paul asking him to come with his sister to Dendwa where Debendra was lying seriously ill prior to his death was written by any of the relations of debendra but by an employee called indra Narayan Majee. Mr. Ghose also submitted that the plaintiff's relations were not even invited to the Sradh ceremony of Debendra (vide plaintiff's evidence questions 320 to 328.

3. THE second point of Mr. Ghose is that according to the plaintiff her mother knew that the marriage between the plaintiff and Debendra was going to take place. But still neither did the mother go to witness the marriage nor did she send any of her relations although it was known that the reason for the marriage was that the plaintiff wauld be the heiress of Debendra Nath chowdhury) questions 224 to 229. Thirdly, Krishna Prosad Pal, the plaintiff's brother says that he did not know of the marriage when it took place. He was then 19 or 20 years of age (questions 104 to 107. But the plainti