Sankarasubban, J.

A.F.A No. 13 of 1995 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. Nos, 238 and 368 of 1983, while A.F.A. No. 30 of 1995 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 144 of 1985 of this court. A.S. No. 238 of 1983 and A.S. No. 368 of 1983 were filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.246 of 1979 of the Sub court, Kozhikode, while A.S. No. 144 of 1985 was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.244 of 1979 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. O.s. Nos. 246 and 244 of 1979 were disposed of together by a common judgment.

2.O.S. No. 244 of 1979 was a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title instituted by one Devi, who is the wife of one Vasudevan. The suit was filed against one Madhavan and his wife Rohini. O.S. No. 246 of 1979 was a suit field by Devi for partition and separate possession over three itmes of properties in that suit. The averments in O.S. No.244 of 1979 are as follows.

3. Plaint Schedule items 1 and 2 were purchased by the plaintiff's husband by registered document No.1192/53 of the Joint Sub Registry, Kozhikode and was being kept in his possession. Item No.3 was purchased by him by registered deed No.113/53 and he was in possession thereof. The above three items were the self- acquisitions of Vasudevan. Vasudevan was doing business in Ceylon and used to visit the native place frequently. Vasuedevan married the plaintiff according to customary rites on 7.3.1948 and they were residing as huband and wife. After Vasudevan left for Ceylon in 1969, nothing was heard of him. Though the Indian High commission office in Ceylon was contacted in 1969 they replied that there was no information about Vasudevan. The plaintiff believed and it is the legal presumption also that Vasudevan is dead.

4. The properties were looked after by Vasudevan during his life time and while he was in Ceylon the plaintif was looking after the properties. After he was unheard of, the plaintiff is looking after the same assisted by the first defendant- Madhavan. When the plaintiff shifted her residence to her father,s house, she used to come to the properties occasionally. The first defendant used to take income on behalf of the plaintiff and produce proper accounts. For the last three years, he was not giving any profirts. So, the plaintiff told the first defendant that she would herself look after the properties and the first defendant should not enter the properties and when the first defendant begain to act igoring her directions, a notice was sent to him. The first defendant had sent a reply raising false and untenable contentions. In the reply notice it is stated that the property was purchased with the funds of the first defendant and that it has been gifted to the second defendant and in the possession of the second defendant. The first defendant has absolutely no right over the property.

5.The defendant in the written statement contended that the plaintiff is not the wife of Vasudevan. The first defendant's father is Ramunni and mother Kallayani. They have four children, Achuthan, Madhavi, Vasudevan and Madhavan. Now the first defendant and Madhavi only are alive. Achuthan died unmarried on 8.12.1968 . Ramunni died in 1962 and Kallyani died on 1.6.1957. Vasudevan had not married the plaintiff according to the religious and customary rites. At the age of 13, Vesudevan was taken by one chekkutty who was doing business at Colombo and he was working in the shop of Chekkutty there. Later Vasudevan was doing his own business at the town Maradana. Once in three or four years he used to come to the native place to see the parents and brothers and sisters. His last visit was in 1946-47. After residing here with parents for eight months towards the close of 1947 he retuned to Ceylon. Thereafter, for some period he was sending letters to his elder borther Achuthan. When Vasudevan returned from here in 1947 end he was unmarried. After 1955, no letters were received from Vasudevan. It is fur