A marriage performed according to the law of the land governing the parties will make the marriage valid and the offspring legitimate, even if the marriage is not recognized by the Canon Law of the Church of Rome.

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A. S. No. 201 of 1950, reversing the well-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur in O. S. No. 434 of 1946.

2. The short facts are : The plaintiffs who are Christian Udayars have purchased the suit property for Rs. 500/- under Ex. A-1 dated 11-11-1942 from the deceased Maria Arogyam and Maria Arogyams grandson and Sowri Ammal. The case for the plaintiffs is that Maria Arogyam is the lawfully wedded wife of Maria Susai Udayar, that Maria Susai Udayars divided brother is the first defendant, and that Maria Susai Udayar died in or about 1939 surviving him his widow Maria Arogyam, his daughter Sowri Ammal and his son Antoniswami. By 11-11-1942 Antoniswami and his wife had died leaving behind them their son Hirudayaswami.

In the sale deed Ex. A-1 this Hirudayaswami is represented by Maria Arogyam. Subsequently, Hirudayaswami also died. The plaintiffs after purchasing these properties have obtained patta for the same. The first defendant Sowrimuthu Udayar and the other defendants, who claim to be the heirs of Maria Susai Udayar, obstructed the plaintiffs and therefore Bandobust petitions were filed in the Deputy Collectors Court, Ariyalur, and subsequently the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, has been filed for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

3. On the other hand, the first defendant and the other defendants put forward a three-fold contention viz., that Maria Arogyam is not the lawfully wedded wife of Maria Susai Udayar; secondly, that the first defendant and Maria Susai Udayar were undivided and the suit properties were acquired with their joint funds; and thirdly, that the defendants have prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession.

4. The learned District Munsif upheld the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to a diametrically opposite conclusion and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defeated plaintiffs.

5. Before entering into the really important question viz., whether Maria Arogyam was the legally wedded wife of Maria Susai Udayar or not, we shall dispose of two other points raised. In this case there is no question of joint family and the benefits of survivorship arising therefrom, because the parties are Indian Christians. Turning to the allegation that the suit properties have been acquired with the joint funds of Maria Susai Udayar and the first defendant, there is not a tittle of evidence in support of the same.

The plaintiffs have filed the sale deeds Exs. A-64 to A-70 under which Maria Susai Udayar had purchased properties by himself. Plaintiffs, have also filed pattas Exs. A-2 to A-6 as well as Exs. A-28 to A-37, and rent receipts Exs. A-7 to A-27, A-40 to A-57 and A-59 to A-63, showing that Maria Susai Udayar has been paying kist for the suit lands. The defendants on the other hand have not filed any kist receipts to show that the first defendant was paying any rent for the suit properties during the lifetime of Maria Susai Udayar or after the death of Maria Susai Udayar or after the death of Maria Susai Udayar.

In fact D.W. 1 admits both. The first defendant merely alleged that he had contributed funds towards the purchase of the suit properties but he was not able to lead any evidence to establish the same. Therefore, the learned District Munsif correctly decided that the suit properties belonged exclusively to Maria Susai Udayar.

6. In regard to acquisition of title by prescription pleaded by the defendants, the evidence on record does not show that the defendants have proved the same. They have not filed pattas and kist receipts or adduced reliable oral evidence to show that they have been enjoying the suit properties in their own right and adversely to Maria Susai Udayar and his heirs.

7. Therefore, the only point which has got to be considered