Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This appeal raises the question of the paternity of the plaintiff. He claims to be the legitimate son of the 1st defendant and impeaches the alienations made by him in favour of defendants 3 to 9. The 2nd defendant, the plaintiffs mother, was legally married to the 1st, about 30 years previous to the suit; but within three months of the marriage, the wife left the husband and lived in a village called Chintamani near her husbands village, with a paramour Kuttalam Chetty. The evidence is, that she has all through been living with this paramour and that there has been no kind of access between the husband and the wife. The plaintiff, on the date of the suit, was 26 years old and the 1st defendant repudiated the plaintiffs legitimacy not only in the suit but also in his will executed by him during the pendency of the action. The Trial Court, after carefully considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act in favour of the plaintiffs legitimacy has been clearly rebutted-Besides fully dealing with the large body of oral evidence, the learned Munsif refers to two important documents: Ex.