1. A person rendering service to an Estate immediately before the date of vesting under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, is entitled to the settlement of land under Section 8(2) of the Act. 2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a marriage is presumed to be valid if the parties are recognized as man and wife by the community.

P. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaypore affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Gunupur in T. S. No. 29 of 1981.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts as appear from the pleadings of the parties are stated hereunder:a) Admittedly, one Suku Saura was the Barika of village Godibandha under the ex-Jaypore Estate and he was given the suit properties as Barik Service Inam land. He had two daughters, Laxmi and Biddika Hadi. Laxmi, the eldest daughter was married to one Kotowal Saura. Suku Saura kept the said son-in-law Kotowal Saura in his house. Biddika Hadi was married to one Bikia Kuru of village Karada. After the death of Suku Saura, Kotowal Saura was in exclusive possession of the suit property. With the abolition of Jaypore Estate in 1953 the Barika system was done away with. However, the suit land was settled with Kotowal by the authorities under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act giving him permanent and heritable right. His name was recorded in the record of rights during the survey settlement. It is alleged in the plaint that after the death of Laxmi, Kotowal married the plaintiff who was then a widow of one Jagannaikulu and a son was born to them. After the death of Kotowal, the plaintiff continued in exclusive possession of the suit property. When she applied for mutation of the suit property in her name, the defendant objected, but in spite of the said opposition plaintiffs name was mutated in Mutation Case No. 162 of 1978. Against the said order of mutation the defendant preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. It has been alleged that the defendant in order to grab the suit properties instituted a proceeding u/ S. 145, Cr. P. C, in which the Executive Magistrate erroneously held that the defendant was in possession of the suit property. As her title and possession were clouded by the said order of the Executive Magistrate, the plaintiff-respondent has instituted the present suit for declaration of her right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. b) The defendant in her written statement denied that plaintiff was married to Kotowal. It has been alleged that the son of the plaintiff is not the son of Kotowal, but he is the son of late Jagannaikulu who was admittedly the husband of the plaintiff. The defendant has also claimed that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land since the death of Kotowal in 1976.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the married wife of Kotowal; that the suit lands were duly settled with Kotowal under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and that the plaintiff has right, title and interest in the suit lands.

( 4 ) THE defendant's appeal before the first appellate Court was also dismissed affirming the findings of the trial Court. It appears that in the first appellate Court the defendant raised further contentions that the settlement of the suit lands with Kotowal was invalid, illegal and that the suit lands having been settled with Kotowal u/s. 7 (1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "o. E. A. Act"), the suit was barred u/ S. 39 of the said O. E. A. Act. The first appellate Court negatived the said contention and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

( 5 ) BEFORE this Court, two questions have come up for consideration, firstly, whether on the evidence on record it can be held that the plaintiff is the lawfully married wife of Kotowal and secondly, whether the settlement of the suit lands with Kotowal was legal and valid in view of the provisions of the O. E. A. Act.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the appellant Mr. A. K. Misra has contended that there being no evidence that the essential ceremonies required for a valid marriage were performed, both the courts below have committed error in holding that the plaintiff is the married wife of Kotowal. He h