Ram Labhaya J.-This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, U. A. D.. dated 18th February 1950 by which the order of the Munsiff, Sibsagar, dismissing plain­tiff's suit for a declaration of title to and posses­sion of the land in suit and for recovery of Bs. 100 as compensation was affirmed. [2] The basis of plaintiffs claim was that he purchased the property from Mt Kepi. Accord­ing to the plaintiff, she was the widow of Manpur and she sold the property in suit to him in order to pay off her deceased husband's debts. In other words, plaintiff pleaded legal necessity in justification of the sale. He further alleged that he got possession from Mt. Kepi but was later on dispossessed by defendant, who had no right or title to the land. [3] Defendant's case was that he was a nephew of Manpur and was his sole heir and Mt. Kepi was not his legally wedded wife. [4l The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that Mt. Kepi was never married to Manpur and that she was not his legally wedded wife. He found defendant 1 to be his sole heir. He further found that there was absolutely EO evidence on the point that the sale was for any legal neces­sity. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the findings arrived at in the Oourt below. He accepted the position that continuous cohabita-tion, conduct of the parties and general repute may raise a presumption in favour of marrisge. But, on a consideration of the entire evidence belore him, he came to the conclusion that the materisl atailable on the record did not justify this presumption. On the other hand, according to him the defence contention that Mt. Kepi was never legally married to Manpur was supported by defence evidence, and his finding was that Mt. Kepi was not a widow capable of inheriting the estate of Manpur. He further found that there was no evidence in support of the allegation that the alienation was for any legal necessity. [5] The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the fact o£ cohabitation had been proved and this coupled with other circumstances fully justified a presumption in favour of marrisge. The contention is that the inference which should have drawn from facts was not drawn. [5] The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the fact o£ cohabitation had been proved and this coupled with other circumstances fully justified a presumption in favour of marrisge. The contention is that the inference which should have drawn from facts was not drawn. Assum­ing that this is so the learned Judge did not commit any error of law. He recognised the posi­tion that continuous cohabitation under certain circumstances may give rise to a presumption in favour of marrisge. The learned counsel has not suggested that the proposition of law as stated by the learned Judge is erroneous or incomplete On facts, the learned Judge was not satisfied that he could make that presumption. In fact, he went further and found on evidence that there was no legal marrisge between Ms. Kepi and Manpur. In view of this finding, the question of presump­tion would not arise, for, even if a presumption is made in favour of marrisge, it is rebut table and if the evidence in rebuttal is accepted and a definite finding is given that there was no marrisge, the finding would be on a question of fact and this Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere. The finding may be erroneous but it could not be challenged in second appeal. Besides, a presumption of facts being an inference depending on facts and the circumstances of each cast, where a Court draws or refuses to draw such an inference on a consideration of the facts, it would not be liable to interference in second appeal. The matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact on both the questions that arise in the case and we do not find any justification for inter­ference. The appeal is dismissed with costs. [6] Thadani C. J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.