Judgement District Judge of Bhagulpur (April 14, 1903). The question at issue was the validity of the marriage of Ishri Pershad and Girjabati, the parents of the respondents Lagan Dai and Chandrabati. Girjabati died long since, and Ishri Pershad died on July 31, 1902. Applications were made by the appellants and respondents respectively for the grant of letters of administration to his estate ; the former, or one of them, being admittedly entitled if the marriage was valid. If the marriage was invalid it was not disputed that the appellants Mouji Lal and Baburam, being distant agnates of the deceased, were entitled. Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 122 ( 1910- 1911). Mouji Lal V. Musammat C handrabati Kumari 59 Ishri Pershads first wife and two children by her died suddenly within a few days of one another in the early months of 1856, and the appellants case was that the shock so affected him that he became insane and that he continued to be insane at the time of his marriage with Girjabati in February-March, 1857; that the proper ceremonies were not performed; and that in consequence the marriage was invalid according to Hindu law. The three applications for letters were ordered by consent to be tried together. The District Judge found that Ishri Pershad was insane at the time of his marriage and that the marriage was not valid. As to the degree of insanity he found that he was so mad as not to know that he was being married, that he was incapable of uttering any mantras, and that all attempts to get the ceremony properly performed were abandoned. He held that a person in this state could not contract a valid marriage, and that in any event, no proper ceremonies having been performed, there was no valid marriage. He refused the applications of the respondents and granted letters to the two appellants. The High Court took a different view of the evidence. Pargiter J. said that the findings of the District Judge that Ishri Pershad lost his first wife and two children in March-April, 1856, that their loss so affected his mind that he became insane, that Ishri Pershad married Girjabati in February-March, 1857, and that Girjabati bore him the two daughters Lagan Dai and Chandrabati were not controverted before them. Pargiter J. said that the findings of the District Judge that Ishri Pershad lost his first wife and two children in March-April, 1856, that their loss so affected his mind that he became insane, that Ishri Pershad married Girjabati in February-March, 1857, and that Girjabati bore him the two daughters Lagan Dai and Chandrabati were not controverted before them. On the question whether the insanity of Ishri Pershad commenced before or after the marriage he found that the mental condition of Ishri Pershad was not such at the time of the marriage as to render him incapable of understanding the ceremony, of accepting the new wife, and assenting to the marriage. As to the performance of the ceremonies of marriage he relied upon the untrustworthy nature of the evidence adduced on the part of the appellants, and the inconsistencies between it and both the documentary evidence in the case and the admitted facts as to the social position of Ishri Pershad and Girjabati for years afterwards. He relied on the fact that the appellants when opposing Girjabati in the matter of the lunacy in 1873 and 1877 did not contest the fact that Girjabati was the wife of Ishri Pershad, but, on the contrary, Mouji Lal so described her in his petition in 1873, and Baburam signed her name for her as Ishris wife in 1877. He stated that the whole family history was consistent only with the marriage having been valid, and that the case was one in which the presumption that all necessary ceremonies had been complied with should be applied. Woodroffe J. agreed and pointed out that whereas it was admitted by the appellants Mouji Lal and Baburam in their petition of objection that some marriage ceremony was performed, the case presented by the evidence was that there were no ceremonies of any kind, but that the marriage was brought about by force and fraud, of which there was no suggestion in the petition of objection. Eddis, for the appellants, contended that the High Court was in error in finding that the evidence did not prove such a degree of insanity at the time of the marriage as to invalidate it. It was also submitted that the District Judge was right in finding that the marriage ceremonies necessary to constitute a valid marriage had not been properly performed and that in consequence the marriage was invalid. It was also submitted that the District Judge was right in finding that the marriage ceremonies necessary to constitute a valid marriage had not been properly performed and that in consequence the marriage was invalid. He referred to Bodhnarain Singh v. Omrao Singh. (( 1870) 13 Moo. Ind. Ap. 519, 527.) There were concurrent findings to the effect that the husband was insane. The only question was as to the degree of insanity, whether it was sufficient to invalidate the marriage, and on this point he referred to Hancock v. Peaty. (( 1867) L. R. I.P. & D 335.) Ross and Branson, for the respondents, were not heard. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 122 ( 1910- 1911). Mouji Lal V. Musammat C handrabati Kumari 60 SIR ARTHUR WILSON. This is an appeal against two decrees of the Calcutta High Court dated April 11, 1905, which reversed certain decrees of the District Judge of Bhagulpur. The whole proceedings arise out of some conflicting applications for the grant of letters of administration to the estate of one Ishri Pershad, who died on July 31, 1902. In the present appeal the only claims in question are those of the respondent Chandrabati, alleged to be a daughter of the deceased, and that of the appellants, who base their claim on their position as somewhat distant agnates. It is admitted that the agnates are entitled if Chandrabati is not. The question therefore is whether Chandrabati and a sister of hers, who is not a party to this appeal, are daughters of Ishri Pershad, and that again depends upon whether he was married to their mother Girjabati. On that question the Courts in India have differed, the District Judge deciding against the marriage, and the High Court in favour of it. Their Lordships are of opinion that the view taken by the learned judges of the High Court is correct. In the judgment of Pargiter J. it is clearly and concisely shewn that from the time of the alleged marriage Ishri Pershad and Girjabati were recognized by all persons concerned as man and wife, and so described in important documents and on important occasions. In the judgment of Pargiter J. it is clearly and concisely shewn that from the time of the alleged marriage Ishri Pershad and Girjabati were recognized by all persons concerned as man and wife, and so described in important documents and on important occasions. Their daughters were respectably married as would be natural in the case of legitimate children; and these facts following upon a ceremony of marriage which undoubtedly took place, though its validity is attacked, afford an extremely strong presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage and the legitimacy of its offspring. On two grounds it is sought to impugn the efficacy of the marriage. It is said, first, that the alleged husband was at the time completely insane, so much so as to be incompetent to enter into a marriage. Their Lordships agree with the learned judges of the High Court in thinking that, to put it at the highest, the objection to a marriage on the ground of mental incapacity must depend on a question of degree, and that in the present case the evidence of mental infirmity is wholly insufficient to establish such a degree of that defect as to rebut the extremely strong presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage. The second ground of attack upon the marriage rested upon the allegation that the forms and ceremonies necessary to constitute a valid marriage had not been gone through on the occasion in question. On this point also the opinion of the learned judges of the High Court was in favour of the marriage, and their Lordships think rightly. To such matters of form and ceremony the established presumption in favour of marriage undoubtedly applies. For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the respondent Chandrabati, who alone appeared in the appeal.