1. A presumption of validity of marriage arises when the parties are recognized as man and wife and so described in important documents and on important occasions. 2. Where the factum of marriage is proved, the court will presume that the necessary ceremonies had been performed.

S. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs from the concurrent decision dated 5-866 of Sri D. Hota, Subordinate Judge. . Kendranara. passed in Title Appeal No. 73 of 1966/172 of 1965 by which the suit has been dismissed.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS brought the suit for setting aside the sale-deed dated 7-4-61 executed by defendant 6 in favour of defendant 1. and for declaration that neither defendant-1. nor the original defendant-6 had, nor the present defendants 6 to 8 have any right, title or interest over any part of the suit-land, and also for declaration that plaintiffs have title and possession over the suit-land -and for permanent iniunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from disturbing their possession over the same.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS 1 to 3 had a brother, named Durga Charan. Plaintiff-4 is their mother. Durga Charan died unmarried in a state of iointness with them. Before, his death, he had been betrothed to defendant No. 6. His marriage with defendant No. 6 could not take place on account of his death. Defendant-6 remained unmarried as nobodv else was willing to marry her as she had acquired an evil reputation on account of the death of Durga Charan to whom she had been betrothed. There was no partition between deceased Durga Charan and his three surviving brothers, plaintiffs 1 to 3. The interest of Durga Charan. therefore, passed to these three plaintiffs by survivorship. Defendant-1, with the assistance of some agnates of the plaintiffs who were on litigating terms with them, set up defendant-6 as the widow of late Durea Charan. and obtained the impugned sale-deed (Ext. B ). It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the said sale was not for consideration and defendant-1, the vendee, did not take delivery of possession of the property purchased by him. The further allegation of the plaintiffs is that even if the sale is held to be valid and for consideration, defendant-6 has sold lands in excess of the share she would be entitled to as the widow of Durea Charan.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant-1. Original defendant-5 died durine pendency of the suit in the trial court and defendants 6. 7 and 8 were substituted in her place. The main contesting defendants are defendants 2 and 7. They traversed all the plaint allegations. Their case is that the deceased Durea

Charan had married defendant-6. Her husband died in the year 1949. She was entitled to succeed to his interest in the joint family properties. The plaintiff pressed upon defendant-6 to dispose of her interest in the ioint family property in their favour which she refused. In consequence, she was put to various harassment. She, therefore, left the family, and went to live in her father's house. Subsequently in order to meet her maintenance and for purposes of pavine her loan, she sold the property to defendant-1. and delivered possession to the vendee.

( 5 ) THE findines of the trial court are that the original defendant-6 was the wife of dursa Charan. that the impugned sale-deed (Ext. B) executed in favour of defendant-1 was valid and for consideration: the plaintiffs have acquired no title over the suit-land by adverse possession, and that neither Durea Charan. nor his widow, defendant-6, was ousted from the use and occupation of the ioint family property, or any portion thereof for a sufficient length of time so as to extinguish their title to the property. All these findings have been confirmed by the lower appellate court.

( 6 ) TWO points have been urged in this appeal. The first is that the defendants have failed to prove the essentials of a valid marriage, and as such, the find-ins of marriage between defendant-6 and Durea Charan cannot be sustained. The second point was that defendant-6 sold lands in excess of her share, and in absence of any issue being framed on that point, the finding of the lower appellate court that Durga Charan's share was one-fifth in the ioint family property, and that the impugned sale-deed (Ext. B) wi