Judgement Appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner (October 11, 1909) reversing a decree of the District Court of Magwe (February 9, 1909). The question in this case was whether under the Buddhist law as administered in Upper Burma the plaintiff-respondent was entitled, as one of two lawful wives of Maung Aung Myat, deceased, to one half share of his estate, or as his free concubine to two-fifths thereof. The suit was for an account and administration of the estate of the deceased, and that certain transfers of oil wells effected by Mi Me after the death of Maung Aung Myat be set aside. Some of these transfers were to heirs and some to strangers to the estate. The appellants, being the first wife of the deceased and the said transferees, denied that the respondent had been validly married to the deceased. The District Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent " had failed to prove satisfactorily that she had a status superior to that of a mistress or a concubine, receiving the visits of the late Maung Aung Myat who had given her three oil wells and two to her sons by her previous marriage, apparently to compensate her for the absence of her right to inherit his estate on his death." The Judicial Commissioner decreed the suit, holding that the respondent was satisfactorily proved to be a wife entitled to inherit on an equal footing with the first appellant. He found that the deceased had two wives; that the appellant was already married to him when he took to wife the latter, who was her younger sister, about two or three years before the annexation of Upper Burma; that from that time onwards the respondent was publicly known as his wife, as well as the appellant, who during a long course of years accepted the relations between the respondent and Maung Aung Myat without any sign of dissatisfaction ; that the fact that Maung Aung Myat gave the respondent three wells might have been a convenient method of arranging for her maintenance during his lifetime, but was not sufficient to negative the inference suggested by all the circumstances in the case, which tended to shew that the respondent had the status of a wife entitled to inherit. Dc Gruyther, K.C. and Eddis, for the appellants, contended that the District Judge was right in finding that the respondent had not proved her marriage. As to the effect of evidence of reputation and recognition they referred to Ma Wun Di v. Ma Kin (( 1907) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 41.), where it was held that repute is of no avail unless there is a public recognition. Evidence was relied upon as shewing that Mi Me was in a superior position to Mi Shwe Ma in the household, and it was contended that in any event the respondent was not entitled to an equal share with the appellant, and if of a lower status was not entitled to inherit at all. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., Parikh, and Pillay, for the respondent, contended that the evidence established the marriage. There was a presumption in favour of marriage and against concubinage. It was unnecessary to prove a ceremony, and there was cogent evidence of the respondents having been recognized and treated as a lawful wife for a considerable length of time. The first married wife was the principal wife; the second, though a lesser wife, was none the less a lawful wife. They referred to Ma Kin Gale v. Ma Kin Gye (( 1910) Selected Judgments of Burma, p. 42.); Jardines Notes on Buddhist Law, pars. 3, 15, 19, 23, 26, 37, 43, 50, and 55; Chantoons Principles of Buddhist Law, 1903, chapter on Law of Marriage, pp. 23, 26; Mi Ka v. Mating Thet, decided in 1873 (See Selected Judgments in Lower Burma, 1872— 1892, 2nd ed., Upper p. 6.); Ma Wun Di v. Ma Kin. (L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 41.) The appellant was shewn to have acquiesced for twenty years in the status of the respondent as an equal wife with herself. The respondent was entitled to inherit on an equal footing with her, so that each was entitled to a half of the estate of the husband as it existed at his death. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burma reversing a decree of the District Court of Magwe. The question on which the Courts differed relates to the status of the plaintiff Mi Shwe Ma. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burma reversing a decree of the District Court of Magwe. The question on which the Courts differed relates to the status of the plaintiff Mi Shwe Ma. She claims to have been lawfully married to one Maung Aung Myat, deceased, and as his widow to be entitled to share equally in his estate with her elder sister Mi Me, who had been married to him for many years before his connection with the younger sister. Ill Burma polygamy is undoubtedly lawful, and it is not unlawful to marry the sister of a living wife, though such a marriage is not considered quite respectable, while marriage with a deceased wifes sister is looked upon as proper and even laudable. The law relating to marriage in Burma is extremely lax. No ceremony of any kind is essential. Mutual consent is all that is required. In the absence of direct proof consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties or established by reputation. But when proof of marriage depends wholly or mainly on reputation the circumstances of the case must be scrutinized with some caution because the same word which is used to describe a woman lawfully married is applied by the Burmese to a woman living with a man on less honourable terms. The lax notions prevalent among the lower classes on the subject seem to be generally deplored and condemned by their betters, and it may be that the difference of opinion between the two Courts is due in some measure to the fact that the District Judge was a native gentleman, an educated Burman, who naturally regarded with little favour if not with positive repugnance practices tolerated by the law of his country, but not in accordance with the standard of a higher civilization. On the other hand the Judicial Commissioner was an Englishman of great experience, without any prejudice in favour of Western notions, whose only object seems to have been to administer the law truly and indifferently as he found it laid down in the Dhammathats and the rulings of his predecessors, and in Sir John Jardines " Notes on Buddhist Law," which seems to be the principal authority on the subject. Both the learned judges analyse the evidence with great care, though they regard it from different standpoints. The District Judge puts aside the testimony of some witnesses as unworthy of belief, while the Judicial Commissioner thinks there was no reason for discrediting them. Whether that particular testimony is accepted or not there is very little contradiction in the evidence. There is abundance of evidence to the effect that Mi Shwe Ma was recognized as the wife of Maung Aung Myat. Mi Me herself says, " Plaintiff was known notoriously as Maung Aung Moyats wife." No one says that she occupied a dishonourable or an inferior position. Maung Aung Myat was a twinzayo, that is an hereditary oil well owner, and as such entitled to receive every year a certain number of oil well sites in the oil-bearing district of Yenangyaung in Upper Burma. Twinzayo after twinzayo comes forward on both sides to say that twinzayos generally have two wives, and that Mi Shwe Ma was Maung Aung Myats wife. Some of the witnesses may have used the word translated " wife " in a loose sense, but at least one witness on each side says that Maung Aung Myat and Mi Shwe Ma were husband and wife," an expression which seems to convey the meaning that she was his wedded wife. Then it may be observed that one of the witnesses who says that Mi Shwe Ma was Maung Aung Myats wife was not a Burman, but a Mahomedan of some position, being the head clerk in the Burma Oil Company. The points on which most reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants seem capable of explanation. One point was that there was no entertainment given on Mi Shwe Mas alleged marriage. When there is a marriage between persons who have not been married before, it seems to be usual to give an entertainment at which " pickled tea " is the principal feature, or at least the chief delicacy. There was no pickled tea at Mi Shwe Mas wedding. But then it seems that in the case of persons who have been married before it is not usual to have these entertainments. Maung Aung Myat had five or six children grown up living with him, and Mi Shwe Ma was a widow with two children living. There was no pickled tea at Mi Shwe Mas wedding. But then it seems that in the case of persons who have been married before it is not usual to have these entertainments. Maung Aung Myat had five or six children grown up living with him, and Mi Shwe Ma was a widow with two children living. Then something was made of the fact that Mi Shwe Ma continued to live with her mother in her own house. But there is authority for saying that such an arrangement is a mere matter of convenience, and probably necessary for the sake of peace and quietness, when each wife has a family of her own. Great stress was laid on the fact that it was not clearly proved that Maung Aung Myat and Mi Shwe Ma messed together, or used to "eat out of the same pot." " Eating out of the same pot M seems rather to be an outward and visible sign of social equality than a proof of matrimony. A man united to a woman of lower degree raises her to his own social position by " eating out of the same pot." Here there is evidence that Maung Aung Myat took his meals with Mi Shwe Ma and her family when he visited her. It is difficult to see how there can be any question of social inferiority in the present case. Mi Me was Mi Shwe Mas sister, and on perfectly good terms with her and the mother during Maung Aung Myats life. As to Maung Aung Myats business, he seems to have managed it himself. Sometimes one sister and sometimes the other, sometimes both, were seen with him when he visited his oil wells, but apparently he kept the business in his own hands. On the whole their Lordships are of opinion that the appellants have not made out a sufficient case for disturbing the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, and their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.