The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act to determine the legitimacy of a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the Defendant No.11 in the original suit animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2007 passed in A.S.No.175 of 2006 by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4716 of 1997, which was suit filed for partition. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) For a decree for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the schedule mentioned properties and if the properties are not capable of the division, to order sale of them and allot 1/3rd share of sale proceeds;

(ii) Against the defendants 1 to 4 to render an account of all amounts received and disbursed by them in the business 'Modern Transports' and also the house property No.3, Arthoon road, Royapuram, Madras 13 listed in the schedule hereunder from 7.9.83 till decree;

(iii) for declaration that the 3rd to 5thy defendants have no manner of right or interest in any of the properties listed in the schedule hereunder; and

(iv) For costs."(extracted as such)

(b) D1 and D2 filed the written statement which was adopted by D6 to D8. D5 and D11 filed their written statements separately. D10 filed the written statement adopted by D9. D1 filed the additional written statement which was adopted by D6 to D8. D2, D9 and D10 filed their additional written statements separately.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(d) During trial, the plaintiff-Prabavathi examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to

B74 were marked.

3. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit granting one third share each in favour of the plaintiff, D1 and D2. Whereupon, only D11 preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, D11 filed this Second Appeal on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether prolonged cohabitation between a man and woman continuously over four decades will give to rise to legal presumption to establish the marriage between them?

(b) Whether mere filing of a document can be relied upon by the Court without any proof of the contents of the document is valid in law?

(c) Whether the finding by the appellant court contrary to the documentary evidence (Ex.B72 to B74) is sustainable?"

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of Second Appeal would detail and delineate thus:

(a) Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that D11 happened to be the legitimate daughter born to Varadarajulu and Krishnabai. In fact, Krishnabai happened to be the legitimate first wife of Varadarajulu and during their wedlock, the couple gave birth to the appellant/D11 and also one son and two more daughters, but those children have not been added as parties while the plaintiff Prabavathi filed the suit.

(b) Ex.B71 cannot be taken as proof for the reason that marking is different from proving and the plaintiff, D1 and D2 who are claiming to be allegedly the only legitimate children of Varadarajulu should have proved the contents of Ex.B71, but they have not done so. Hence the Courts below misdirected themselves warranting interference in the Second Appeal.

(c) Even though the plaintiff, D1 and D2 repeatedly averred as though Krishnabai was earlier married to one Andi Munusamy and that her relationship, if any, with Varadarajulu was an adulterous one, yet they have not chosen to prove that Krishnabai was married to