Presumption of marriage on the ground of long cohabitation.

Of the six defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants.

.2. The plaintiff Madheswaran filed the suit for partition of his 8/21 shares in the suit properties and rendition of accounts, and that has been decreed. He filed the suit alleging as follows: His father was one Varada Odayar. He married two wives Angammal and Sampoornammal. He died in the year 1959. Angammal died on 4. 1972. Defendants 1 and 2 are respectively the son and daughter of Angammal. The said Sampoornammal is the third defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 are her daughters. The plaintiff and his mother-the third defendant are residing in one house that belonged to Varada Odayar. Varada Odayar left the suit properties which were owned by him, and his properties were in the management of Angammal till her death. The plaintiff as co-owner is entitled to 8/21 shares in the suit properties and the 1st defendant would be entitled to 8/21 shares and the deceased Angammal and 3rd defendant together would be entitled to 1/21 share and defendants 2 and 4 to 6 are each entitled to 1/8 share. After the death of Angammal the 1st defendant has taken over the management of the suit properties. The plaintiffs attempt to get partition of his share of the suit properties failed and therefore he had to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. They denied that Sampoornammal was married by Varada Odayar. They contended that Sampoornammal was married to one Siddhappa Chetty of Rasipu-ram and to them three children were born. While that marriage was subsisting the third defendant developed illicit intimacy with Varada Odayar from 1950. The plaintiff can at best be an illegitimate child of Varada Odayar. Defendants 1 and 2 and deceased Angammal alone are the heirs of Varada Odayar and as such they are entitled to the properties left by him. Thus neither the third defendant nor her children are entitled to any share in the suit properties. In any event the defendants 1 and 2 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and as such they have prescribed title by adverse possession.

4. Defendants 3 to 6 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the status of the third defendantas the wife of the Varada Odayar has already been decided in prior proceedings and therefore the defendants 1 and 2 cannot reopen that decision in the present suit.

.6. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case accepted the case of the plaintiff that his mother Sampoornammal has been married to Varada Odayar and it rejected the case of defendants 1 and 2 that she was only a mistress of Varada Odayar. It further held that the marriage had taken place before 1949 when the Madras Begami Prevention Act, 1949 came into force and therefore the marriage was legal and valid. It rejected the case of the defendants that they have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession against the plaintiff. It also held that the decision in the earlier proceedings A.S.No.212 of 1971 cannot operate as res judicata in the present suit. It rejected the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to rendition of accounts. On these grounds the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 8/21 shares in the suit property. It directed the plaintiff to include in the suit property bearing door N0.8-C, Ganapathy Vilas Rice Mill Road, Rasipuram involved in the prior proceedings. Accordingly the trial court passed a decree against the defendants. As against this the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the appeal. The plaintiff also has filed a cross objection against the disallowance of his claim for rendition of accounts.

7. It is contended by Mr.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 that, (i) the finding of the trial court that the third defendants Sampoornammal wa