Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the assets of a Nair female who died without leaving any issue. Plaintiff who is a Namboothiri Brahmin, claimed that he was her lawful husband and was entitled under S.19 of the Cochin Nair Act, XIII of 1095, to one half of her separate assets. Defendants 1 to 33 are the Marumakkathayee heirs of the deceased woman, being her mother and other members of the mother's thavazhi, who would be entitled to the other half of her assets if the plaintiff was her husband and who would be entitled to all her assets if the plaintiff was not her husband. On behalf of them it was contended in the lower court that the plaintiff had not legally married the deceased and that she was only living in concubinage with him. This contention was accepted by the lower court, and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff therefore filed the present appeal. After filing the appeal he died, and it is now being prosecuted by other members of his illom. 2. S.3 of the Cochin Nair Act, which came into force on 23rd Edavom 1095 M.E., corresponding to 5th June 1920 A.D., provides: "Subject to the restrictions of consanguinity and affinity recognised by the community, the conjugal union of a Nair female with (a) a Nair male or (b) any male, other than a Nair, with whom conjugal union is permitted according to social customs and usage, openly solemnised by the presentation of cloth to the female by the male, or in any other customary form before the date on which this Act comes into force and subsisting on such date, or so solemnised by the presentation of cloth after this Act comes into force, shall be deemed to be a legal marriage ................................ The plaintiff's case is that he lawfully married the deceased Ammukutty Alias Parukutty Amma on 23rd Dhanu 1103, according to the social usage, solemnised by presentation of cloth to her, and that while his marriage with her was subsisting she died on 15.1.1121 leaving no issue and he is therefore entitled under S.19 of the Cochin Nair Act to one-half of the assets left by her. Defendant 1 is Parukutty Amma's mother, defendants 2 and 3 her brothers, and defendants 4 to 7 her sisters. Defendant 1 is Parukutty Amma's mother, defendants 2 and 3 her brothers, and defendants 4 to 7 her sisters. Besides defendants 4 to 7 Parukutty Amma had another sister named Kunchi Amma who predeceased her, and defendant 8 is the daughter of that sister. Defendants 9 to 33 are the other members of defendant's thavazhi, being the issue of defendants 4 to 8. The suit was contested on behalf of defendants 1 to 33 by defendants 1 to 7, defendants 1 and 3 to 7 filing a joint written statement and defendant 2 a separate written statement. They contended that the plaintiff was not Parukutty Amma's legal husband, that Parukutty Amma was originally married by one Gopalan Nair who was the brother of Pw. 5, that after his death the plaintiff contracted an intimacy with her which subsequently developed into a concubinage, that he had never legally married her and there was no marriage on 23.5.1103 as alleged in the plaint, that one Ammukutty Warasyar was the plaintiff's wife and he had five children by her, and that as Parukutty Amma was never legally married to the plaintiff he had no right at all to the assets left by her. In his evidence as Pw.1 the plaintiff admitted that Ammukutty Warasyar was his wife before his marriage with Parukutti Amma, and that at the time of his marriage with Parukutti Amma he had four children by her. But he also said that in 1101 before his marriage with Parukutty Amma, he had terminated his relationship with Ammukutty Warasyar and that it was after so terminating it that he married Parukutty Amma. He admitted further that even after his marriage with Parukutty Amma he had been consorting occasionally with Ammukutty Warasyar and had another child by her. His explanation for this was that, as his marriage with Parukutty Amma proved to be barren, he consulted an astrologer who told him that it was because of Ammukutty Warasyar's grief on account of his separation from her that children were not being born to Parukutty Amma and that he resumed his relationship with Ammukutty Warasyar in order to appease her and enable children to be born to Parukutty Amma. At the time of hearing in the lower court it was contended on behalf of the defendants that since the Plaintiff had married Ammukutty Warasyar before his marriage with Parukutty Amma and the evidence relating to his divorce of her was unreliable in the light of his admission and the evidence of the other witnesses in the case relating to his relationship with her even after his marriage with Parukutty Amma, the marriage with Parukutty Amma, even if true was illegal and void under S.4 of the Nair Act since it was a marriage during the continuance of a prior marriage. In reply to this contention it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that Ammukutty Warasyar being a female not governed by the Nair Act, the plaintiff's marriage with her, which was in the sambhandhom form, i.e., by presentation of cloth, was no legal marriage at all and that therefore his marriage with her, even if it was subsisting on the date of his marriage with Parukutty Amma, was no legal impediment to his marriage with the latter. The lower court dismissed the suit, deciding all question including the above contention, against the plaintiff, and holding that he had not legally married Parukutty Amma by openly solemnising the marriage by the presentation of cloth as required by S.3 of the Nair Act and she was only his concubine and not legal wife, that he was not therefore entitled to any share in the assets left by her, that his marriage with Ammukutty Warasyar was a legal marriage and was not one which could be ignored as constituting no legal relationship of husband and wife, that he had not divorced her before 12th Dhanu 1103 and his marriage with her was therefore a bar to a legal marriage with Parukutty Amma, and that even if he had married Parukutty Amma in the manner prescribed by S.3 of the Nair Act that marriage would therefore be illegal and void. 3. The main question for decision in the case is whether the plaintiff had legally married Parukutty Amma and whether she was his lawful wife at the time of her death. 3. The main question for decision in the case is whether the plaintiff had legally married Parukutty Amma and whether she was his lawful wife at the time of her death. The evidence is clear, one may even say that it is practically admitted, that for a long time before Parukutty Amma's death there was open and continuous co-habitation between the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma and that they were being looked upon by others as husband and wife. The defendant's contentions in the written statements were that this co-habitation was due to a concubinage and not to any legal marriage, that Parukutty Amma was never legally married by the plaintiff in the manner prescribed by S.3 of the Nair Act, and that, as she was not legally married by the plaintiff, he was not entitled to any share in the assets left by her even though they were living together on account of the concubinage. The question therefore for decision is whether the plaintiff had married Parukutty Amma in the manner prescribed by S.3 of the Nair Act. On this question, after hearing both sides, we are perfectly satisfied, for reasons which will be stated presently that the plaintiff had never married Parukutty Amma in the manner prescribed by S.3 of the Nair Act and that therefore his relationship with her cannot be held to be illegal marriage and was only a concubinage. In this view it is unnecessary to consider the question of the validity of the plaintiff's marriage with Ammukutty Warasyar and whether on account of his marriage with her the alleged subsequent marriage with Parukutty Amma was illegal and void under S.4 of the Nair Act. It may also be stated in this connection that there was no specific pleading in the lower court about the validity of the plaintiff's marriage with Ammukutty Warasyar and as to his marriage with Parukutty Amma being illegal and void on account of that earlier marriage and that the lower court had not also set down any issue for trial in regard to the matter. There is also no specific evidence as to whether the plaintiff had actually gone through any marriage ceremony with Ammukutty Warasyar and what was the form of his marriage with her. There is also no specific evidence as to whether the plaintiff had actually gone through any marriage ceremony with Ammukutty Warasyar and what was the form of his marriage with her. In these circumstances and in view of the conclusion we have reached on the question whether the plaintiff had married Parukutty Amma in the manner prescribed by S.3 of the Nair Act we do not express any opinion at all as to the validity of his marriage with Ammukutty Warasyar and whether that marriage would affect the validity of his alleged marriage with Parukutty Amma. 4. To prove that he had legally married Parukutty Amma and she was his lawful wife the plaintiff relied upon the evidence of Pws.1, 3,4 and 5 and upon the presumption of marriage arising from long and continuous co-habitation. Pw.1 is the plaintiff. According to him, he married Parukutty Amma on 12th Dhanu 1103 according to social usage by presenting cloth to her, and after the marriage they were living together both in his illom and in Parukutty Amma's house. He says that the marriage ceremony was performed at Parukutty Amma's house and that there was also feasting in connection with it although he as a Namboodiri Brahmin did not participate in the feast. Pw. 3 was the Proverthiakar of a neighbouring village. He claims to have seen the actual marriage ceremony. He says that the plaintiff invited him for the marriage and so he went to Parukutty Amma's house and was present at the time of the marriage ceremony and that he saw the plaintiff marrying Parukutty Amma by presenting cloth to her. Pws. 4 and 5 were not present at the time of the marriage and have not seen the marriage ceremony, but both of them say that the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were husband and wife and had been living together as such. Pw. 5 is a cousin of Parukutty Amma. His deceased brother Gopalan Nair was Parukutty Amma's first husband. According to Pw. 5 after Gopalan Nair's death the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were living together as husband and wife from 1103. In addition to these oral evidence the plaintiff also relies upon certain letters written by defendant 7 and her husband and some of the other members of the tarwad. Defendant 7 is Parukutty Amma's younger sister. According to Pw. 5 after Gopalan Nair's death the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were living together as husband and wife from 1103. In addition to these oral evidence the plaintiff also relies upon certain letters written by defendant 7 and her husband and some of the other members of the tarwad. Defendant 7 is Parukutty Amma's younger sister. She was married in 1106, and shortly after her marriage she went with her husband to the Federated Malaya States where he was employed. While they were living in the Federated Malaya States they used to come home occasionally, and after children were born to them they brought those children here and left them to be brought up by Parukutty Amma. Most of the letters produced by the plaintiff are letters written to him and Parukutty Amma by defendant 7 and her husband from the Federated Malaya States. In these letters they refer to the plaintiff as tPjvT3 or 1/4gXncn tPjvT3 and write to him about matters relating to the tarwad of Parukutty Amma and defendant 7, complaining about the indifference or incompetence of the Karnavan and other adult male members and asking the plaintiff to see that matters are set right. They also express their gratitude for the affection and care with which the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were looking after their children and for the attention the plaintiff was bestowing on the tarwad affairs. The other letters produced by the plaintiff are letters written by defendant 7 and her husband to defendant 1, who was the mother of Parukutty Amma and defendant 7 and two or three letters written by the children of the tarwad. In the children's letters the plaintiff is referred to as sNdnbN3 meaning uncle, and in the other letters he is referred to as tPjvT3 and in affectionate terms. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he would not have been referred to in these letters as tPjvT3, 1/4gXncn tPjvT3 and sNdnbN3 unless he was the brother-in-law and uncle of the writers of the respective letters and that from those expressions and the general tone of the letters it can be seen that his relationship with Parukutty Amma was an open and acknowledged relationship and was not a clandestine or illicit relationship and that his case that he had legally married her and was her lawful husband must therefore be true. It is urged that these letters and the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 would furnish proof of a long, continuous and open co-habitation of the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma with the repute that they were husband and wife and that from such co-habitation a presumption of lawful marriage would arise and therefore, even without the evidence of Pws.1 and 3, it has to be held that the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were legally married and Parukutty Amma was the plaintiff's lawful wife. The defendants freely admit that the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were living together for a very long time as husband and wife. The fact of a long, continuous and open co-habitation is also clear beyond dispute from the letters referred to above, the genuineness of all of which is admitted. The defendants' case is that the plaintiff had never married Parukutty Amma and that their co-habitation was only because of a concubinage and not because of any legal marriage. It is contended on their behalf that not only the evidence furnished by the defendant's witnesses but also circumstances appearing even from the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses would conclusively disprove the plaintiff's case of a legal marriage and show that Parukutty Amma was only his concubine and not lawful wife. 5. Numerous authorities were cited before us in support of the proposition that law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage and that from continuous co-habitation for a number of years lawful marriage may be presumed. As we do not doubt the correctness of this proposition, and its correctness was also not disputed by the respondent's counsel, it is unnecessary to refer to all of them here. The law as laid down by the Privy Council in Mohabbat Ali v. Md. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, is that there is a presumption in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have co-habited continuously for a member of years. After the marriage laws of Nairs have been defined and settled by the enactment of the Nair Act of 1095, when a man and woman governed by that Act are found to have been continuously co-habiting for a long number of years as husband and wife, this well-recognised presumption will arise in their case also and can be applied to them. But this is only a presumption upon a matter of fact, and is, therefore rebuttable. Where an explanation is offered for the facts giving rise to the presumption, the Court cannot ignore the explanation and act on the presumption alone. Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, the Supreme Court has said that it is well settled that continuous co-habitation for a number of years may arise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and that if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption the court cannot ignore them. What circumstances or evidence would weaken or destroy the presumption must necessarily depend upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to that matter. This principle has been recognised by the Privy Council in Sastry v. Sembucutty, VI AC 364, in which case their Lordships quoted with approval the following passage from Piers v. Piers, 2 HLC 331. "The evidence for the purpose of repelling it (the presumption) must be strong distinct, satisfactory and conclusive. No doubt every case must vary as to how far the evidence may be considered as satisfactory and conclusive; but he lays down this rule, that the presumption must prevail unless it is most satisfactorily repelled by the evidence in the cause appearing conclusive to those who have to decide upon that question", In Ramlakhan Singh v. Gog Singh AIR 1931 Patna 219, it has been pointed out that although a certain presumption may arise in favour of the plaintiff yet it may be rebutted at the same time by circumstances brought to light in the plaintiffs' own evidence by means of cross-examination or otherwise independently of the evidence adduced by the defendant. To prove the circumstances repelling the presumption the party seeking to rebut it is not necessarily confined to the evidence adduced by him alone and has the right, as in all matters pertaining to evidence to rely also upon circumstances brought to light in the evidence of the opposite party. To prove the circumstances repelling the presumption the party seeking to rebut it is not necessarily confined to the evidence adduced by him alone and has the right, as in all matters pertaining to evidence to rely also upon circumstances brought to light in the evidence of the opposite party. Such circumstances should be strong and conclusive and must be established satisfactorily, but in considering, whether they have been established satisfactorily the Court is entitled to look into all the evidence in the case, including the evidence adduced by the party relying upon the presumption, and not merely the evidence of the party seeking to rebut it. 6. In this case the defendants have not only given direct evidence disproving the marriage, that is to say, they have not only examined persons without whose knowledge a legal marriage, in the circumstances mentioned in the plaintiff's evidence, could not have taken place, but also rely upon numerous circumstances which conclusively show that the plaintiff had not legally married Parukutty Amma. Dw. 7 is defendant 2 who is the karnavan of Parukutty Amma's tarwad, and Dw. 8 is defendant 3, the next senior male member of the tarwad. A legal marriage of one of the female members of the tarwad with the usual feasting could not have taken place in the tarwad house without the knowledge of either of these persons. Both of them say that Parukutty Amma was never legally married by the plaintiff and, that, while she was living in the tarwad house after her first husband died, the connection between her and the plaintiff began at first as a clandestine intimacy and was subsequently continued as a concubinage. According to them the karnavan had serious objections to this intimacy when he first came to know of it, but he had subsequently acquiesced in it because defendant 1, his mother, was on the side of Parukutty Amma and the plaintiff. Dw.1 is a person who is entitled to certain customary rights in connection with all Nair marriages taking place in the village in which Parukutty Amma was residing, and Dw. 2 is a close neighbour. Dw.1 is a person who is entitled to certain customary rights in connection with all Nair marriages taking place in the village in which Parukutty Amma was residing, and Dw. 2 is a close neighbour. Both of them swear that no marriage took place in Parukutty Amma's house in Dhanu 1103, and Dw.1 says that Parukutty Amma's connection with the plaintiff first began as a clandestine intimacy and was subsequently acquiesced in by the other members of the tarwad and they were therefore living together as man and woman. According to Dw.1 he is entitled to customary rights in connection with marriages and if a marriage had taken place he was one of the persons who would have been sure to be present. Dw. 2 says that being a close neighbour he too was certain to be invited if there had been a marriage, and as a matter of fact no marriage, took place in Parukutty Amma's house in Dhanu 1103 an he was also not invited for any such marriage. Some of the other defence witnesses also say that plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were not legally married and were only living together as husband and wife. But it does not appear from their evidence that they were sure to know about the marriage if it had taken place, and so the defendant do not rely upon their evidence. Thus, on the question whether there was a legal marriage or not we have on the one side the positive evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and on the other the negative evidence of Dws.1, 2, 7 and 8. On behalf of the plaintiff it is urged that in view of the presumption of law in favour of marriage and against concubinage the positive evidence of Pws.1 and 3 must be preferred to the evidence of Dws.1, 2, 7 and 8; and on behalf of the defendants it is contended that the evidence of Dws.1, 2, 7 and 8 as well as the numerous other circumstances appearing on the evidence in general strongly negative the presumption and that the evidence of Dws.1, 2, 7 and 8 should therefore be accepted. 7. 7. After the enactment of the Nair Act of 1095 marriages of Nair females by Nair males or by males of other communities with whom conjugal union was permitted by social usage were governed by S.3 to 6 until the enactment of the Nair Act, XXIX of 1113. S.4 of the Act of 1095 prohibited the marriage of a male during the continuance of a prior marriage and also provided that no one having a personal law of his own allowing polygamy could marry a Nair female while already married to a caste wife or marry a caste wife while having a Nair wife already. S.5 related to dissolution of marriage and provided that a marriage would be dissolved by death of either party or by the either party renouncing Hinduism, or becoming an out caste, and that in all other cases it would be dissolved only by mutual consent evidenced by registered documents or by a formal order of dissolution by a Court of law. S.6 enjoined that when the husband sought to obtain an order of dissolution from the Court he should pay reasonable compensation to the wife. The last clause of S.3 provided: "Notice of the marriage shall be given by such person and to such authority and in such form and within such time as the Government may prescribe. Failure to give the prescribed notice shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees". There was practically no difference between the Acts of 1095 and 1113, in regard to these matters. Rules regarding the authority and form referred to in the last clause of S.3 of the Act of 1095 were made by the Government on the 23rd Edavom 1095 and duly published in the Cochin Government Gazette. Under those rules the parties to the marriage, if they were majors, had to give notice of the marriage to the Parvathyakaran of the village in which the marriage was solemnised and the Parvathyakaran had to enter the particulars contained in the notice in a register kept for the purpose and submit the notice with a report to the Tahsildar of the taluk and the Tahsildar had to enter the particulars in a similar register kept by him and also publish a copy of the notice in the Government Gazette. Parukutty Amma was twentyone years old and the plaintiff about thirtyfour or thirtyfive years old at the time of their alleged marriage in 1103. It is admitted by the plaintiff that neither he nor Parukutty Amma has given any notice of their marriage as required by S.3 of the Act of 1095 and the rules mentioned above. If the plaintiff had legally married Parukutty Amma neither he nor Parukutty Amma would have omitted to give that notice, especially in view of the penalty to which they rendered themselves liable by the omission to give the notice. The plaintiff's explanation for this omission is that he was not aware of the duty cast by S.3 to give notice of the marriage. But it has to be remembered that the marriage itself is said to have taken place eight years after the enactment of the Nair Act and the publication of the rules. The Nair community, being one of the major communities in the Cochin State, thousands of marriages must have been performed after the enactment of the Act and before the date of the plaintiff's alleged marriage with Parukutty Amma. It is therefore impossible to believe the plaintiff's explanation that he was not aware of the duty cast on him by S.3 of the Act to give notice of the marriage. From the documents produced in the case the plaintiff is seen to have been a member of a jenmi family and a man of means. Pw. 3 who is said to have been one of the guests invited by him for the marriage was himself a Parvathyakaran of another village who must have registered numerous marriages under this provision of law. Besides these circumstances which tend to belie the plaintiff's explanation, the defendants have produced copies of the notice given under S.3 in respect of the marriage of other female members of Parukutty Amma's tarwad after the enactment of the Nair Act. One of these marriages, namely, that of defendant 7, is said to have been brought about by the plaintiff himself, and Ext. X is the copy of the notice given in respect of that marriage. It is significant that in the case of the alleged marriage of Parukutty Amma alone no notice has been given under S.3 of the Act. One of these marriages, namely, that of defendant 7, is said to have been brought about by the plaintiff himself, and Ext. X is the copy of the notice given in respect of that marriage. It is significant that in the case of the alleged marriage of Parukutty Amma alone no notice has been given under S.3 of the Act. Even if the plaintiff was not aware of the provision to give notice of the marriage it is certain that the members of Parukutty Amma's tarwad would have caused him or Parukutty Amma to give the notice required by S.3 if Parukutty Amma was legally married by the plaintiff as is now alleged by him. The karnavan, Dw. 7, was a clerk in the District Magistrate's Court. In 1103, when the marriage is said to have taken place he could not have anticipated that Parukutty Amma would predecease the plaintiff, and the chances then were that she who was only twentyone years of age would survive the plaintiff who was at that time thirtyfour or thirtyfive years old. As under the Act of 1095 the widow was one of the heirs of the deceased husband, if the plaintiff had legally married Parukutty Amma in 1103 it is absolutely certain that Dw. 7 and other members of the tarwad would have taken care to see that notice of the marriage was given immediately in order to ensure subsequent proof of that marriage. No doubt the notice by itself is not conclusive proof of a legal marriage, but it is strong, though not conclusive, evidence of the marriage, especially as the form prescribed requires the signatures of both spouses. In view of the penalty attached to the omission to give the notice it is also highly improbable that any person, who was not a minor, would fail to give notice of his or her marriage. Before the enactment of the Act of 1095 a Namboothiri male was free to have at the same time a caste wife, a Nair wife and a wife belonging to any other Marumakkathayam community. He was free not only to have wives in all these three categories but also to have as many wives as he liked in each category. Before the enactment of the Act of 1095 a Namboothiri male was free to have at the same time a caste wife, a Nair wife and a wife belonging to any other Marumakkathayam community. He was free not only to have wives in all these three categories but also to have as many wives as he liked in each category. A change was brought about in this matter by S.4 of the Act of 1095, and after the enactment of that Act he could not marry a caste wife or a wife belonging to any other Marumakkathayam community if he had a Nair wife already. It is admitted that the plaintiff had no caste wife at the time of his alleged marriage with Parukutty Amma. As he was only thirtyfour or thirtyfive years old it is not improbable that he would have liked at that time to keep unfettered his liberty to have a caste wife. That liberty would have been lost if he had legally married Parukutty Amma and it could not be kept in tact only by taking Parukutty Amma as a concubine and not as a legal wife. In this connection it is significant that the plaintiff is not a person who was averse to having a concubine or who would have preferred only a wife & not a concubine. Even before his marriage with Parukutty Amma he had another union with Ammukutty Warasyar, which, according to him, was not a legal marriage, and had also four children by Ammukutty Warasyar. After he is said to have married Parukutty Amma he resumed his connection with Ammukutty Warasyar and got still another child by her. In the light of these facts the omission to give the notice under S.3 appears to be a strong circumstance militating against the plaintiff's case of a legal marriage. 8. In the cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that there is no record containing any admission from him that Parukutty Amma was his wife. This is not a case in which there was no likelihood of executing any document containing such an admission or no significance can be attached to the absence of such documents. If Parukutty Amma was the plaintiff's lawful wife there were plenty of occasions for stating that fact in registered documents. As has been stated already the plaintiff belonged to a jenmi family and was a person of considerable means. If Parukutty Amma was the plaintiff's lawful wife there were plenty of occasions for stating that fact in registered documents. As has been stated already the plaintiff belonged to a jenmi family and was a person of considerable means. His case is that the acquisitions in Parukutty Amma's name were made with funds given by him. Ext. R is a sale deed executed in Parukutty Amma's favour by the plaintiff's elder brother and other persons on 12.10.1114. The second executant in Ext. R was the wife of the plaintiff's elder brother, and was described in the document as such. If the plaintiff's case is true that document was executed by executants 1 and 2 in favour of the lawful wife of the first executant's younger brother. Yet Parukutty Amma was described in Ext. R not as the wife of the first executant's younger brother but simply as a member of Chempakasseryputhan Veedu and as the daughter of defendant 1. This difference between the description of the second executant and the description of Parukutty Amma in Ext. R is very significant. Equally significant is the description of the plaintiff's elder brother's wife in Ext. U, which is a document executed by the plaintiff himself in favour of his brother and the latter's wife on 25.1.1114. In that document the plaintiff referred to his brother's wife not merely by name and house name but as his brother's wife. These two documents show that the members of the plaintiff's family used to refer to their wives in registered documents executed by them not merely by their names and house names but also as the wives of such and such persons. Ext. AB would show that even when referring to female members of other families in registered documents the plaintiff used to describe them not merely by names and house names but also as the wives of their respective husbands. In 1108 the plaintiff had taken a simple mortgage Ext. Y from one Meenakshi Amma and her children and the mortgage amount thereunder was repaid to the plaintiff and the mortgage redeemed after Meenakshi Amma's death by her daughter and other persons. Ext. AB dated 2.11.1116 is the release of the mortgage, Ext. Y, executed by the plaintiff on receipt of the mortgage amount. In Ext. Y from one Meenakshi Amma and her children and the mortgage amount thereunder was repaid to the plaintiff and the mortgage redeemed after Meenakshi Amma's death by her daughter and other persons. Ext. AB dated 2.11.1116 is the release of the mortgage, Ext. Y, executed by the plaintiff on receipt of the mortgage amount. In Ext. AB the plaintiff himself described Meenakshi Amma's daughter Lekshmi not only by her name and house name but also as Narayanan Nair's wife. According to the plaintiff part of the amount received by him under Ext. AB was deposited in Parukutty Amma's name in a Bank, and Ext. T is said to be a statement of accounts sent by the Bank to Parukutty Amma for this amount as well as other sums deposited by the plaintiff in her name. This statement was sent to Parukutty Amma in 1116, at a time when the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma were admittedly living together. Yet Parukutty Amma's address is given in Ext. T as C/o. Chempakasseri Kuttiparu Amma, i.e., defendant 1, and not as C/o Vishnu Namboothiri. This also would indicate that there was no legal relationship between the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma. Over one of the properties Parukutty Amma purchased from the plaintiff's elder brother under Ext. R there was a prior encumbrance. She discharged that prior encumbrance according to the plaintiff with his money, in 1116, and Ext. Z is the receipt taken by her for the said discharge. She also executed a sale deed, Ext. XI in favour of defendant 7 in 1116 for a property comprised in Ext. R. In both Ext. Z and Ext. XI the plaintiff is an attestor. He signed those documents describing himself only as belonging to his illom, Kappiyoor Mana, and not as Parukutty Amma's husband. If he was her legal husband these are two documents which he should have attested in his capacity as her husband. The omission to describe himself in those documents as Parukutty Amma's husband stands on the same footing as the omission to give the notice under S.3 referred to in Para.7 above and can be attributed only to the fact that there was no legal marriage. 9. The omission to describe himself in those documents as Parukutty Amma's husband stands on the same footing as the omission to give the notice under S.3 referred to in Para.7 above and can be attributed only to the fact that there was no legal marriage. 9. The fact that Parukutty Amma had been living at times in the plaintiff's illom and the reference to the plaintiff in the letters produced by him as tPjvT3, 1/4gXncn tPjvT3, Xncptan tPjvT3 and sNdnbN3 have been relied upon by the appellant's counsel as circumstances in support of the plaintiff's case. Both these circumstances are perfectly consistent with the plaintiff's case as well as the defendants' case and are therefore wholly inconclusive. The plaintiff himself has admitted that Ammukutty Warasyar also, who even according to him was not his lawful wife, was sometimes living with him in his illom. If one concubine could be allowed to live in the illom there was nothing incongruous in allowing another concubine also to live in it. In this connection it is also noteworthy that the plaintiff has not called any member of his illom or any neighbour to prove in what capacity Parukutty Amma was living there and whether she was being treated by them as his lawful wife or only as a woman with whom he was consorting without a lawful marriage. The plaintiff has carefully refrained from calling any member of his family or of Parukutty Amma's family to prove the relationship between them. The evidence of Pw. 2, an Advocate, would show that rich Namboothiri Brahmins used to enter into loose connections with Marumakkathayee females which did not amount to lawful marriages and which they could terminate at will, and that until recently such unions were not being frowned upon or viewed with disfavour. Admittedly Parukutty Amma's tarwad consisted of a large number of members and according to Pw.1's evidence the total income the tarwad was deriving from its landed properties was only 150 paras of paddy per year. As may be seen from the letters the tarwad affairs were also being mismanaged owing to the incompetence or indifference of the karnavan and the next senior male member. Parukutty Amma who was a young widow was thus in needy circumstances in 1103 and would have readily accepted a connection from the plaintiff even though it did not amount to a lawful marriage. Parukutty Amma who was a young widow was thus in needy circumstances in 1103 and would have readily accepted a connection from the plaintiff even though it did not amount to a lawful marriage. As the plaintiff belonged to a jenmi family and was a person of means it was quite natural on his part to make gifts to his mistress and acquire properties for her, and since Parukutty Amma had no child of her own it was also natural for her to love and care for her sister's children. The evidence of Dw. 7 is that although he did not favour this connection at first he was obliged to acquiesce in it because of his mother's attitude. When there was a concubinage thus accepted and acquiesced in by the members of the tarwad they would naturally be addressing the plaintiff and referring to him in their letters only by such terms as tPjvTm sNdnbN etc. The word tPjvTm means nothing more than'elder brother' and is very often used in addressing or referring to any elderly person held in respect. The children of Parukutty Amma's sister also could have referred to the plaintiff only by the term sNdnbN and nothing else. He was after all their de facto uncle, and in writing to him or to Parukutty Amma they could not refer to him in any other term. These letters by themselves do not prove anything more than that Parukutty Amma's tarwad had acquiesced in and accepted the relationship between the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma and do not amount to proof of a legal marriage. During her lifetime, when an acknowledgment of a lawful marriage between her and the plaintiff would have been an impediment in the way of the plaintiff taking another lawful wife and when there would have been a chance of Parukutty Amma inheriting to the plaintiff in the event of his predeceasing her, the plaintiff was careful not to make any admission in documents that she was his lawful wife although there were plenty of occasions on which it would have been natural for him to make such an admission. It is noteworthy that even Parukutty Amma had not made any statement during her life-time that she was the plaintiff's lawful wife although such a statement would have been very beneficial for her interest and there were occasions on which it would have been natural for her to make such a statement. Both of them had not also given notice of their marriage to the authorities as required by S.3. These are circumstances which cannot be ignored at all. They and other circumstances referred to in Para.6, 7 and 8 above lead only to one conclusion, namely, that there could not have been any legal marriage between the plaintiff and Parukutty Amma and that they were living together only on account of a concubinage which was acquiesced in by the other members of the tarwad. The lower court was therefore right in disbelieving the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and holding that the plaintiff had not legally married Parukutty Amma and she was not his lawful wife at the time of her death. 10. It follows that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the assets left by Parukutty Amma and that the suit was rightly dismissed. The decree of the lower Court is accordingly confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.