The presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation and repute can be rebutted by evidence showing that no marriage could have taken place.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

1. Defendants 1 and 6 are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.

170 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur, for directing division of the suit properties, put him in separate possession of his 1/7th share and for other allied reliefs. The 1st appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd appellant is one of the sons of the 1st defendant through one Peruma Ammal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is the son of one Pappammal. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant through his first wife Mari. Respondents 3 to 5/Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant through his third wife Peruma Ammal.

2. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:— The 1st defendant is his father. On the death of Mari, his first wife, in or about 1941, the 1st defendant married one Pappammal, who is the mother of the plaintiff, in or about 1942 according to Hindu Law, custom and rites at Perumapattu village. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant and the said Pappammal. During the pendency of the said marriage, the 1st defendant married another lady by name Peruma Ammal, whose children are defendants 3 to 6. Thus, the plaintiff and all the defendants are part and parcel of a Hindu undivided family and the properties described in the plaint schedule are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Since the 1st defendant, who is the Kartha of the Hindu undivided family, refused to effect a partition and give the plaintiff his due share in spite of his notice dated 1-4-1980, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession, and for mesne profits. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the joint family properties and the defendants are each entitled to 1/7th share.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement along with the 6th defendant. According to them, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share either in the plaint schedule properties or in any other properties. It is absolutely false to state that the 11st defendant is the father of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff is the illegitimate son of the 1st defendant land not his legitimate son. It is equally false to state that the list defendant had married one Pappammal, who is the mother of the plaintiff, in or about 1942 according to Hindu Law, custom and rites. The 1st defendant married one Mari Ammal as his first wife and she died during 1941 leaving behind her one son viz., the 2nd defendant and two daughters. After the death of Mari Ammal, the 1st defendant married one Samathammal as his second wife. The said Samathammal left the family house within a few years. Subsequently, the list defendant married one Peruma Ammal as his third wife in or about 1944. After the marriage with Samathammal, the 1st defendant contracted illicit intimacy with the said Pappammal who had been already married. There is no valid marriage between the 1st defendant and Pappammal. No marriage took place between them as the husband of Pappammal was alive at the time of her illicit intimacy with the 1st defendant. Pappammals husband is even now living. Pappammal and her husband Koola Goundan were living together when the 1st defendant contracted illicit intimacy with Pappammal. The illicit intimacy continued for two or three years and during the course of the said illicit intimacy, the plaintiff was born to Pappammal and the 1st defendant. Thereafter, there was absolutely no intimacy between Pappammal the 1st defendant and they were living separately for nearly 34 years she had absolutely no connection with the defendants family. Defendants 2 to 6 are the legitimate sons of the 1st defendant and none else. The plaintiff is not a member of the joint Hindu family. Equally it is false to state that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties or the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defenda