Present: De Sampayo J. and Schneider A.J.

MOHOTHIHAMY et al. v. MENIKA et al.

198-D. C. Kegalla, 4,968.

Kandyan marriage contracted before 1870-Proof of cohabitation and repute not enough-Observance of Kandyan customs- Ordinance No. 3 of 1870, s. 25.

Though under the ordinary law evidence of cohabitation and repute may be sufficient to raise a presumption of valid marriage under section 25 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1870, some proof must be given of the observance of the laws, institutions, and customs in force in Sandy at the time of marriage.

THE facts appear from the judgment of the District Judge (H. E. Beven, Esq.): -

The land in dispute in this case between the plaintiffs and defendants is the block of 61 acres and 2 roods within the boundaries coloured pink in plan No. 1,682 filed. This land was part of a larger land called the Mahinkandegallatwasama, some 316 acres in extent, which belonged to four families. One of these families was the , Akurukiyana Ganladdalage family, which was admittedly entitled to a one-fourth share. This one-fourth share was vested in one Akurukiyana Ganladdalage Naidehami, as whose grandchildren the pla