Devadoss, J.

1. This appeal raises a novel question. The plaintiffs mother Pechiammal was first married to one Subramania Thevan in September or October, 1903, who divorced her in May or June, 1904. She married again one Thirumeni Thevan in June or July, 1904. The plaintiff was born to her in September, 1904. The plaintiff sues for partition of his one-third share in the property of Thirumeni Thevan. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was the son of Thirumeni Thevan and passed a preliminary decree in his favour. The Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Thirumeni Thevan. Mr. Justice Krishnan set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiff was the son of Thirumeni Trievan. There is evidence in the case to show that Pechiammal did not live with her first husband for any length of time but carried on an intrigue with Thirumeni Thevan in consequence of which there were criminal proceedings and Subramania Thevan divorced her on account of her conduct. There is also evidence that Thirumeni Thevan treated the plaintiff as his son