Presumption of marriage held justified.

Sathiadev, J.

1. Plaintiffs are appellant. They filed a suit, O.s. No. 114 of 1971 on the file of Sub-Court, Erode for the relief of declaration and possession, with mesne profits of the suit property, or alternatively for partition and separate possession of one-half share with damages; or alternatively to award past and future maintenance to plaintiffs and for such other reliefs to which they are entitled to.

2. First plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, and plaintiff Rs 2' to 4 being her heirs are already on record.

3. It is not in dispute that the suit property and other properties were ancestral properties of one E.C. Subramania Iyer, who had two sons being E.S Dhandapani Iyer and Ranganatha Iyer.

4. It is claimed by plaintiffs that Ranganatha was employed in a bus transport company and was also having a taxi and that he married one Bagirathi as his first wife. A son by name Pichan was born to them. As his first wife was inflicted with T.B., to care for her, first plaintiff came into the household and as Ranganatha developed a liking to her, the marriage between Ranganatha and first plaintiff took place on 1.2.1933 in the house, in the presence of relatives and well-wishers and before the family deity Muruga. First plaintiff was earlier married ' in her 10th year and lost her husband even before attaining puberty. After the marriage on 1.2.1933, she lived in the house, looking after the ailing senior wife and her son Pichan, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the sons and fourth plaintiff the daughter, were born to them. First wife of Ranganatha died in' 1939 or 1940. Ranganatha died on 23.8.1955, leaving behind a will 'dated 1.8.1955. Plaintiffs refer to the financial difficulties experienced by Dhandapani, the elder brother of. Ranganatha and claim that a family arrangement was arrived at leading to the execution of a composition deed dated 18.4.1930 (Exhibit A.34) executed by Subramania Iyer and his two sons, in and by which, the suit property was exclusively allotted to Ranganatha and that subsequently he had been exercising full rights of ownership, by mortgaging it, leasing it out and by paying municipal dues etc., from time to time. At no point, of time, Dhandapani ever exercised any right or interest ever the suit property ever since 1930. After the death of Bagirathi, Dhandapani picked up quarrels with Ranganatha and left the suit, house along with his father, who later died in 1943. Pichan was under the care of first plaintiff and he died in 1955. As Ranganatha was in strained circumtances, on 4.3.1951, he had usufrutuarily mortgaged the suit property to one Meenakshi Ammal, the wife of one S. Krishnasami Iyer, a close relation. When first plaintiff wanted to register the will executed by Ranganatha bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiffs. Dhandapani filed a suit in O.S. No. 279 of 1958, District Munsif's Court, Erode, praying for a declaration that the will was not true, valid and binding upon him. It was decreed on 19.6.1959 and A.S. No. 30 of 1960 was filed as against it and it was allowed on 5.9.1960. Dhandapani filed S.A. No. 762 of 1961 and it was allowed on 27.6.1983 holding that the property being a, joint family property the will is not enforceable Thereafter, Dhandapani filed O.S. No. 32 of 1965, in Sub Court, Erode seeking for redemption of the unsufructuary mortgage, to which plaintiffs were not made as parties. It resulted in a compromise and possession was taken by defendants on 19.10.1967. During the pendency of the suit Dhandapani died on 24.9.1965. This decree is not binding upon plaintiffs. As the said mortgage had not been validly redeemed, possession of the defendants could not destroy the rights of the heirs of the mortgagor Ranganatha. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Ranganatha. By virtue of adverse possession they acquired absolute title to the suit property. If it be held that the suit property is' joint family property, then they are entitled to the relief of partition,