The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and cogent rebutting evidence and the acknowledgement of marital status in a registered document in determining the validity of a marriage, along with the legal principles regarding the presumption of marriage from continuous cohabitation.

1. This second appeal concerns the question of a marriage: whether Rama Warrier of Thekkedethu Puthen Warriam had married the defendant Janakyamma, described in the plaint as residing in Thekkedethu Puthen Warriam. Certain facts are not in dispute. Rama Warrier inherited about 14 cents of land. Ho was employed in the Municipal service. The plaintiff (examined as P.W.1) is his sister. He had another sister, but she passed away prior to the death of Rama Warrier. Sankara Warrier, P.W.2 is the son of the deceased sister. The defendant had been staying with her sister and her sister's husband very close to Rama Warrier's residence. She originally belonged to Adoor, and had, according to her, accompanied her sister and brother-in-law when they moved to Kottayam. Anandavally Amma is the daughter born to her sister. Even as early as 1124 M. E. (1948), Rama Warrier and the defendant were known to each other. The mortgage dated 11-4-1124 evidences a mortgage by Rama Warrier in favour of the defendant.

2. The plaintiff would say that the defendant was only a dependant and a maid servant of Rama Warrier and that she had been already married to a police constable by name Ramakrishna Pillai who passed away later. The plaintiff would admit that Rama Warrier and the defendant were living together for about 10-20 years. According to the defendant, Rama Warrier's services were solicited for giving tuition to the defendant's niece. The acquaintance between Rama Warrier and the defendant later developed into intimacy and ultimately they got married. The marriage was not to the liking to the families of both Rama Warrier and the defendant. The defendant would contend that after a simple ceremony relating to the marriage conducted in 1125, they continued to live together and under the same roof thereafter till death did part them: Rama Warrier died on 22-6-1975.

3. The positive evidence in support of the marriage was given by D.W. 1, the defendant and a close neighbour of Rama Warrier, D.W.2. Strong reliance was placed on a document Ext. B1 gift deed executed on 10-9-1968 (about 7 years prior to the demise of Rama Warrier) in favour of Anandavally Amma, the niece of the defendant. The document makes reference to the defendant as the wife, in more places than one.

4. Counter evidence was offered by the plaintiff, who examined herself as P.W.1, and the nephew of deceased Rama Warrier (P.W.2), and a watcher in a women's hostel (P.W.3)., They would assert that Rama Warrier lived and died a bachelor.

5. The courts below accepted the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit concurrently. The second appeal has arisen in the above circumstances. Khalid J. (as his Lordship then was) ordered notice on the following substantial questions of law:

"1) Can a presumption of marriage be raised from continuous cohabitation

between a man and a woman for a number of years? 2) Is this a rebuttable presumption?

Are there circumstance in this case which would weaken or destroy the presumption?"

6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that well-settled principles relating to the presumption in relation to marriage, and the appreciation of evidence in the background of such principles, had been totally ignored by the courts below. This fundamentally erroneous approach, according to him, had vitiated their conclusions. In addition to the usual contention that the appreciation of evidence should not be interfered with in second appeal, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of this court in Kali v. Kamalakshi Amma, 1967 K.L.T. 1063.

7. Certain features of the plaintiff's evidence have to be noted in this connection. The plaintiff, has been residing far away in Chengannur for along time. She got information about the death of her brother and came to the residence of Rama Warrier. She admits that Rama Warrier and the defendant were residing in the same house for 10-20 years. To a specific question put to her, even in chief-examination, whether Rama Warrier