Judgment 1. IN this testamentary suit one patal Sundari Devi is asking for Letters of Administration as in the case of intestacy in respect of the properties of debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased. The plaintiff's case is that about 30 years ago she and Debendra came to know each other at the residence of the plaintiff's mother in Duttabagan at belgachia. Intimacy grew up between the plaintiff and Debendra to which the plaintiff's mother objected. Thereupon Debendra brought the plaintiff to a flat in Simla and then to premises no. 53f, Masjid Bari Street. In both these places the plaintiff says that, she and Debendra were living as husband and wife. On the 24th March, 1945 Nagenrabala Devi the first wife of Debendra died. On me 27th June 1945, the plaintiff states Debendra married the plaintiff at the Nari Mangal Ashram in Calcutta and a marriage certificate was duly issued. On May 23, 1958, Debendra Nath Chowdhury died. The plaintiff applied on the 16th may, 1960 for grant of Letters of Administration to this Court. On the 8th August, 1960, Ashidharini Debya, sister of Debendranath Chowdhury filed a caveat on December 13, 1960. On the plaintiff's application the matter was marked as a contentious cause. Ashidharini did not survive to see this litigation to an end. She died on the 1st April, 1961. Her death was recorded on the 11th July, 1981 and fresh citations were ordered to be issued to the heirs of Ashidharini. These heirs filed caveat on the 5th October, 1961, but only Profulla Kumar Chakrabarty, a son of Ashidharini has filed an affidavit in support of the caveat and is the principal defendant in this suit. 2. LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of Profulla has raised only one issue viz: "is the plaintiff the legally married wife of Debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased ?" Mr. Sambhu Ghose, learned counsel for Profulla Chakraborty has argued that on the evidence on record oral and documentary the Court ought to come to the conclusion that no ceremony had taken place on the 27th June, 1. 945. He has divided his arguments into several heads. His first point is that the conduct of the parties and their respective relations subsequent to June, 1945 suggests, that, there was no ceremony of marriage on the date alleged by the plaintiff. There is no letter, submits Mr. 945. He has divided his arguments into several heads. His first point is that the conduct of the parties and their respective relations subsequent to June, 1945 suggests, that, there was no ceremony of marriage on the date alleged by the plaintiff. There is no letter, submits Mr. Ghose, after June 1945, written by debendranath Chowdhury wherein the plaintiff has been mentioned. There is no letter from any of the members of the family or Debendra to the plaintiff. It is said that Nabani Chowdhury, a nephew of Debendra was brought up by the plaintiff since his childhood as he used to prosecute his studies in Calcutta (vide plaintiff's evidence Questions 95 and 154. But there is no letter from Nabani either after June, 1945. That it is strange that not a single relation of Debendra Nath chowdhury has come to pledge his oath on the witness box in support of the marriage. Lastly, Mr. Ghose points out that Ex. "g" which is a letter from dendwa dated the 14th May, 1958 to the plaintiff's brother Krishna Prosad paul asking him to come with his sister to Dendwa where Debendra was lying seriously ill prior to his death was written by any of the relations of debendra but by an employee called indra Narayan Majee. Mr. Ghose also submitted that the plaintiff's relations were not even invited to the Sradh ceremony of Debendra (vide plaintiff's evidence questions 320 to 328. 3. THE second point of Mr. Ghose is that according to the plaintiff her mother knew that the marriage between the plaintiff and Debendra was going to take place. But still neither did the mother go to witness the marriage nor did she send any of her relations although it was known that the reason for the marriage was that the plaintiff wauld be the heiress of Debendra Nath chowdhury) questions 224 to 229. Thirdly, Krishna Prosad Pal, the plaintiff's brother says that he did not know of the marriage when it took place. He was then 19 or 20 years of age (questions 104 to 107. But the plaintiff says that Kesto knew about it (question 197 to 198. 4. FOURTHLY Narayan Chandra Roy, the only witness (apart from the plaintiff) of the marriage has made contradictory statements. He was then 19 or 20 years of age (questions 104 to 107. But the plaintiff says that Kesto knew about it (question 197 to 198. 4. FOURTHLY Narayan Chandra Roy, the only witness (apart from the plaintiff) of the marriage has made contradictory statements. In questions 78 to 96 he said that Debendra's first wife died about two years or one year and a half prior to his marriage with the plaintiff Patal Sundari. He did not know the same of his first wife. When he has told that she died on the 24th march, 1945 he said he had no recollections. He remembers that he attended the Sradh ceremony of Debendra's first wife donning an over coat. Fifthly, it is suspicious that the plaintiff executed a deed of surrender and relinquishment in favour of Debendra's brother's sons on the 18th april, 1960 (Ex. "a". . . . . . . . and then instituted within a month these proceedings on the 16th May, 1960. In the deed of surrender and relinquishment the plaintiff gave up her right and title to and interest in Debendra's properties in consideration of certain advantages to be received by her. None of these nephews of Debendra it is further to be noted, has come to depose in favour of the plaintiff ; although in the document itself she is described as debendra's widow. 5. THESE arguments of learned counsel for the defendant I am not inclined to accept. The evidence is that the plaintiff was living with Debendra for a fairly long time. No formal ceremony of marriage took place till June, 1945. That being the case no sudden change can be expected in the treatment by relation after marriage. Ex "a" which is supposed to be the deed of surrender and relinquishment describes the plaintiff as the widow of Debenda. Ex "l" is a letter dated the 30th September, 1945 addressed by the defendant himself to Debendra. In this letter the defendant addresses the plaintiff as "mamima" (maternal aunt)and offers salutations to her. The defendant says that he referred to Patal sundari as "mamima" by way of courtsey only. He never addressed her face to face by that name. He admits, however, that there was no difficulty in omitting any reference to her in that letter. In this letter the defendant addresses the plaintiff as "mamima" (maternal aunt)and offers salutations to her. The defendant says that he referred to Patal sundari as "mamima" by way of courtsey only. He never addressed her face to face by that name. He admits, however, that there was no difficulty in omitting any reference to her in that letter. He says that he knew that there was a lady at premises No. 53-F, masjidbari Street, Calcutta and that was why he addressed her as Mamima. These answers of the defendant when i watched him on the witness box appeared to me to be unconvincing, vide questions 47 to 67 and 75 to 81. 6. I will now refer to a few other exhibits. Exts. "h" and "i" are two letters dated the 7th September and the 29th September, 1959 respectively addressed by Profulla from Kumar dhubi to the plaintiff's brother in Calcutta. These two letters show that the defendant was quite familiar with kristo Prosad Pal, the brother of the plaintiff. Then it appears from the defendant's evidence that there was no protest on the part of Debendra's family members to his association with the plaintiff and subsequent marriage with her. Profulla Chakraborty says that he did not know whether any member of the family protested against De-ben's relationship with Patal. But he does know that neither he nor his mother who was Debendra's sister made any protest: questions 148 to 150. When Debendra died at Dendua Patal xvas there. She went there five or six days before the death. She was also at Dendua when the Sradh ceremony took place on the 11th day of Debendra's death. Profulla had admitted all these facts yet he says that the family members were treating Patal merely as a concubine. This part of his evidence I find it difficult to accept: vide questions 341 to 358. Profulla tried to change his answers to these questions in questions Nos, 391 to 397. Here he said that Debendra's Sradh ceremony took place at his residence and his nephews did not allow Patal to enter into the residence. He even went to the extent of stating that he could not say whether Patal was staying at Dendua at that time : Question 396. These answers of Profulla without corroborating evidence must be rejected. Here he said that Debendra's Sradh ceremony took place at his residence and his nephews did not allow Patal to enter into the residence. He even went to the extent of stating that he could not say whether Patal was staying at Dendua at that time : Question 396. These answers of Profulla without corroborating evidence must be rejected. Profulla to improve upon his case still further, also said that Patal was not allowed to touch the dead body of Deben, but she was touching him when he was ailing although she was not actually nursing him: questions 376 to 379. Again this part of Profulla's evidence does not bear scrutiny. Then again, it is the plaintiff's evidence that Nabani Chowdhury, one of Debendra's nephew (brother's son)was reared up by her since his childhood: Question 154, Nabani had his father ; but his mother was not alive. His father agreed to Nabani being brought up by the plaintiff: Questions 29. 7 and 298. This evidence of the plaintiff is accepted by Profulla Chakraborty in questions 236 to 247. He knows that Nabani was staying in Calcutta at 53-F, Masjidbari Street where the plaintiff was living and was prosecuting his studies there. He was Deben Chowdhury's elder brother's son and Profulla does not know whether nabani was staying in Calcutta with his father's consent. 7. FROM the evidence I have discussed above it is clear that at least subsequent to the marriage Patal Sundari was accepted as Debendra's wife by his family members. There may not be overwhelming evidence of cordial relationship between patal Sundari and Debendra's family members after marriage; but the evidence that is there appears to me to be sufficient to come to the conclusion I have arrived at. 8. IT is true that the plaintiff has sand that neither her mother nor any of her relations was present at the marriage ceremony. But having regard to the fact that Patal and Debendra were living together for a considerable length of time and there was no occasion to be suspicious of Debendra's conduct or intentions it is quite believable that the mother of Patal did not think it necessary to be present when a legal status was being given to her. It is also true that there is slight contradiction on this point between the plaintiff and her brother Kristo. It is also true that there is slight contradiction on this point between the plaintiff and her brother Kristo. The plaintiff has said that Kesto knew that marriage was taking place. But kesto's evidence is that he did not know about it ; questions 102 to 107. This contradiction I am prepared to ignore. Thirdly, Narayan Chandra roy's evidence on the date of marriage may have been a little shaky. But I must concede that he was giving evidence after about 10 years and I may excuse him if his recollections were not clear or if he was confused. 9. AS regards the absence of Debendra's nephews as witnesses for the plaintiff I am inclined to accept the plaintiff's explanation. The plaintiff tells me that as these nephews did not pay to her a single farthing in respect of her husband's properties, she had to file the present petition : Question 260. In other words the nephews turned hostile to her and they cannot be expected to depose in her favour. 10. IN these circumstances I do not accept the contention of learned counsel for the defendant that no ceremony took place at all on the 27th June, 1945. I have now to examine the nature of this ceremony and whether it constituted a valid marriage between patal Sundari and Debendra. The plaintiff Patal Sundari has said that after the death of the first wife of Deben the marriage between Patal and Deben had taken place. A friend of her husband called Narayan Roy was present. There was a ghat or sacred pitcher placed on the bedi or platform. The Narayansila was also there, and a pot had been kept, on which homa was performed. She and her husband were made to sit on two Ashans ; garlands were put round their necks ; and sacred threads were tied round their wrists. The couple was asked to go round seven times in their front. The ceremonies were performed by a Pandit. A silver rupee coin was placed in the hand of her husband who was asked to put the vermilion on her forehead at the parting of the hair with the silver coin. Her husband carried out the instructions the Pandit then asked them to bow down to the Narayan Sila, which was done. And then the Pandit asked Patal to take the dust of her husband's feet. Her husband carried out the instructions the Pandit then asked them to bow down to the Narayan Sila, which was done. And then the Pandit asked Patal to take the dust of her husband's feet. After she had complied with that direction she was told that from that day onwards the two were husband and wife. The ceremony took place in the evening at about 8 o'clock. After the formalities were gone through, says the plaintiff, "something was being reduced into writing". The Pandit acted as the priest. He was known to Patal as he used to come to the residence of patal's husband. He is now dead. There was also another priest whom she had not seen before. The proposal for marriage came from her husband so that she could succeed to Deben's property. After the marriage some people were treated to a feast at premises No. 53f, Masjidbari Street. All the relations both of Patal and Deben came to know of the marriage subsequently. (Questions 102 to 119, 170 to 178, 181 to 190 and 214 to 223. 11. THE evidence of Narayan chandra Roy lends substantial support to Patal. A close scrutiny may reveal some contradictions which are not unexpected but generally speaking as to the procedure of marriage the two witnesses appeared to me to be consistent. Narayan also speaks of performance of homa; the putting of the vermilion mark and the going round the sacred fire which he describes as the seven steps. Narayan has further proved the marriage certificate marked Ex. "b" issued by the Narimangal Ashrama which was executed in his presence by the Secretary of the Ashrama and the priest Dinabondhu Vedashastri. This document bears the signature of narayan. It was written at about 8. 30 p. M. after the marriage in a small room by the side of the place where the altar was. Narayan first said that, it was written by the priest, then he corrected himself and said that it was written by the Secretary. This document bears the signature of narayan. It was written at about 8. 30 p. M. after the marriage in a small room by the side of the place where the altar was. Narayan first said that, it was written by the priest, then he corrected himself and said that it was written by the Secretary. The pandit handed over the paper to him for his signature and said "today the marriage between Fatalbala Debi and deben Babu had taken place at 7 or 8 p. M. "narayan is not certain however, as to the date of marriage, but he knows that it took place in the month of Ashar, He said that the contents of Ex "b" are correct because the marriage had taken place in his presence, the rites were all performed in his presence; vide questions 11 to 18, 102 to 104, 108, 215, 216, 243, 252 to 253, 280, 290, 290 to 292 and 299. 12. I shall now come to the evidence of Dinobondhu Vedashastri who is one of the signatories to the marriage certificate, that is exhibit "b". The certificate reminds him that he acted as a priest in the marriage. I must say that Vedashastri's evidence is not of much asistance to prove the fact of marriage between Patal Sundari and deben Chaudhuri, but I get in his evidence the procedure that used to be followed, the rites that were performed in a marriage at the Narimangal ashrama. Vedashasti says that the marriage was conducted according to vedic rites which were accepted by the arya Samaj. He has spoken of Sankalpa, that is "an expression of determination in the marriage ceremony": madhupankha-that is "regulation of the bridegroom" the homa that is, "the sacred fire" ; the Pradhakshin that is, "surrounding the sacrificial fire seven times" and the Pratignya Mantra that is, "that the bridegroom accepts the bride as his wife before the public and the bride also accepts him as her husband". As far as Vedashastri remembers the bride and the bridegroom in the instant case were not Arya Samajists and certain rites which were observed by Hindus who were not Arya Samajists might have been introduced. But vedashastri's definite evidence is that in every marriage the Homam that is jagna Pradhakshin and Sankalpa were observed. As far as Vedashastri remembers the bride and the bridegroom in the instant case were not Arya Samajists and certain rites which were observed by Hindus who were not Arya Samajists might have been introduced. But vedashastri's definite evidence is that in every marriage the Homam that is jagna Pradhakshin and Sankalpa were observed. Vedashastri went to the Narimangal Ashram for performing marriage ceremonies on three or four occasions and the marriage with which we are concerned was one of them. Apart form this he has no other relations. About the Narayan Sila his evidence is that the Secretary of the Ashrama used to bring it in every case. Vedashasti has identified the signature of the Secretary and his own signature on "ex. B". He does not remember narayan Chandra Roy. The marriage according to him must have taken place after sun set. Generally, it took two to three hours. Vadashastri does not remember whether the relations of the bride and the bridegroom were present on this occasion. Generally in intercaste or inter-provincial marriage, the relations did not attend. He does not exactly remmeber who wrote out the marriage certificate. He thinks that it was written out by Shiva Sankar kabyathirtha. I believe he was referring to the Secretary of the Ashram; vide questions 1 to 5, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 435, 65 to 68, 72, 73, 77 to 88, 97, 121, 126 to 127, 169 to 179, 184, 185, 198, and 208. It is on the evidence discussed above that I have to give a decision on the validity of the marriage. Various authorities have been cited before me. These cases are all referred to in the recognised text books and I could confine myself, as far as possible, to these books to reach my conclusions. 13. THERE are various. forms of marriage in Hindu Law, most of the forms excepting the Brahma, the Gandharva, and the Asura are now obsolete. The essence of the Brahma form of marriage is that it is a gift of the daughter in marriage. The distinctive mark of the Asura form is the payment of money for the bride. The Gandharva form rests upon agreement and springs from mutual love. In all these cases the marriage rites are implied and must be performed. They are identical in all the three forms. The distinctive mark of the Asura form is the payment of money for the bride. The Gandharva form rests upon agreement and springs from mutual love. In all these cases the marriage rites are implied and must be performed. They are identical in all the three forms. Though the: gandharva form was more favoured among the Kshatriyas in olden days, according to the text of Manu, it was lawful for Brahmins as well as Vaisyas and Sudras. This form of marriage, meaning, a mutual agreement coupled with the performance of the prescribed and customary marriage rites is not obsolete. In (1) Kamani Devi v. Kameshwar Singh, 25 Patna 58 it has been held that a Gandharva marriage among Brahmins is valid even at the present time, but that its celebration is to be attached with nuptial rites and ceremonies including homa and saptapadi for its validity; vide Mayne's hindu Law and Usage, 11th Edition, arts. 90 to 93 at pp. 127 to 130. 14. MY attention has been drwan to a judgment of G. N. Das, J. in (2)Lalit Mohan v. Shyamapada A. I. R. (1952) Cal. 771. This was the remarriage of a widow according to the system of Kanthibadal prevalent among the Bairagis. Das, J., relying on certain text books observed that the gandharva form of marriage is now obsolete. This statement has obviously been made with referenre to concubinage. In Mayne's Text book cited above the following passage appears at page 129 of Article 93 :- "if the Gandharva form of marriage meant, as had been erroneously assumed, concubinage, it was never valid ; the statement that it has become obsolete can be correct only if it refers to the view that concubinage at any time constituted marriage under Hindu Law. The Gandharva form of marriage meaning a mutual agreement coupled with the performance of prescribed or customary marriage rites is certainly not obsolete - " On the evidence in the instant case there is no doubt that prior to the 27th June, 1945, the relationship between Deben and Patal was that Patal was Deben's concubine. But on the 27th June 1945 they went through the Gandharva form of marriage. There is clear evidence of mutual agreement and the performance of nuptial rites and ceremonies like Homa and Saptapadi. It was contended by mr. But on the 27th June 1945 they went through the Gandharva form of marriage. There is clear evidence of mutual agreement and the performance of nuptial rites and ceremonies like Homa and Saptapadi. It was contended by mr. Sambhu Ghose learned Counsel for the defendant that there were also other rites like Panigrahan, Sampradan etc. which were not performed. But I find from Mulla's Hindu Law, llth Edition, Article 437 at pages 547 and 548 that there are two ceremonies whether the marriage be in the Brahma form or the Asura form namely- (1) Invocation before the sacred fire (2) Saptapadi i. e., the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire. The marriage becomes complete when the seven steps are taken: till then it is imperfect and revocable. 15. IN (3) Mutrusami Mudaliar v. Masilemani, 33 Madras 342 Sankaran nair, J. observes at page 349 as follows: "the Hindu lawyers prescribe various ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage. . . . . . But these ceremonies in their entirety are seldom if ever performed. According to them Vivaha Homam and Saptapadi are essential. But it is notorious that mariages are performed in many castes without them and it is now settled that if by caste usage any other form is considered as constituting a marriage then the adoption of that form under those conditions prescribed by the caste with the intention oi thereby completing the marriage union is sufficient. No other conclusion is possible if due regard is had to conditions in India. . . . . . " this passage, I find, has been relied on in Gour's Hindu Code, 4th Edition in Article 355 at page 117. It shows that Homam and Saptapadi are the essential rites of a Hindu marriage. And there is evidence in this case that these rites were performed. I have also the authority of Mayne's Hindu Law and usage that the marriage rites are identical in all the three forms, viz., the brahma, the Asura and the Gandharva. 16. THE next point that arises is that, Deben Chowdhury was a Brahmin and Patal Sundari a Sudra. The ancient texts prohibited Pratklloma marriages that is between males of lower caste and females of higher caste. Accordingly such marriages have been held by courts to be invalid. But Anuloma marriage were permitted and recognized by the texts. 16. THE next point that arises is that, Deben Chowdhury was a Brahmin and Patal Sundari a Sudra. The ancient texts prohibited Pratklloma marriages that is between males of lower caste and females of higher caste. Accordingly such marriages have been held by courts to be invalid. But Anuloma marriage were permitted and recognized by the texts. Accordingly the Bombay High Court held that a marriage between a Vaisya male and a sudra female, or a Brahmin male and sudra female is valid. The Calcutta high Court has also held that a marriage between a Brahmin male and a Sudra woman both of whom are Jati Vaishnavas is valid. It has been held by the madras High Court that a Nattukottai chettiar who is a Sudra can legally marry a dancing girl who has not been dedicated to a temple ; vide Mulla's Hindu Law, 11th edition, article 435, page 543. In this article it is also indicated that Anulama marriages were held to be invalid in Madras and Allahabad. But the observation of the Division bench of this Court in (4) Nalinaksha v. Rajanikanto. reported in A. I. R. 1931 cal. 741 should be followed by me. It is stated in this case that a marriage [between a Brahmin male and a Sudra woman though not an approved type of marriage is still a marriage and the children are legitimate. The problem has now been solved by statutory provisions. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Validity act, 1949 provided that no marriage between Hindus would be deemed to be invalid or even to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties thereto belonged to different religious castes, sub-castes or sects. This Act has been repealed by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. But section 29 (1) of the latter Act has introduced the same provisions validating intercaste marriages. 17. I have made the above observations relying mainly on well known text books of Hindu Law. I intend now to refer to a few decisions which appear to me to be relevant in diciding the present case. In (5) Brindabon v. Chundra, 12 Cal. 140 it is observed that the taking of seven steps by the bride is the most material of all the nuptial rites for the marriage becomes complete and irrevocable on the completion of the seventh step. In (5) Brindabon v. Chundra, 12 Cal. 140 it is observed that the taking of seven steps by the bride is the most material of all the nuptial rites for the marriage becomes complete and irrevocable on the completion of the seventh step. In (6) Appibai v. Khimji, A. I. R. 1956 Bombay 138 it is stated that there are two ceremonies essential to the validity of a Hindu marriage, viz., the invocation before the consecrated fire and the Saptapadi or the taking of seven steps by the bride and the bridegroom jointly before the consecrated fire. The marriage becomes perfect and irrevocable only when the seventh step is completed, for it then creates a religious tie which once tied cannot be untied. 18. THE evidence in this case is that the marriage between Deben Chowdhury and Patal Sundari had taken place on the 27th June 1945 at the Narimangai Ashram. it appears to be a marriage in which two of the essential nupual rites namely homa and Saptapadi were performed. The Narayan 'sila was also there and the vermilion mark was put by tne bridegroom on the bride's parting of hair. The entire ceremony was conducted by a priest whose definite evidence is that he used to conduct the marriage ceremonies according to Vedic rites and rules and regulations prescribed in the Grihya sutras: vide deposition of Dinobandhu vedashastri (questions 4 and 7. On this evidence it will be proper for me to hold that the plaintiff is the legally-married wife of Debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased. There is also a series of judicial decisions over a long period as to presumption of marriage. I may refer only to some of them in this connection. In the case of (7) Kashinath v. Bhagwan Das, A. I. R. 1947 P. C. 168, the judicial Committee followed the earlier decisions of the Board given as long ago as 1869 in 30 M. I. A. 141 at page 158 in these words:- "then, if there was a marriage in fact, was there a marriage in law ? When once you get to this, namely that there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law." 19. When once you get to this, namely that there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law." 19. IN (8) Beerappa v. Michael, a. I. R. 1963 S. C. 933, the Supreme court refers to the judgment of the privy Council in (9) Moujilal v. Ckandrdbati, 38 I. A. 122 and observes that where it is true that the marriage was performed in fact the Court will also presume that the necessary ceremonies have been performed. Recently in (10) Rakappa v. Chockelingam, A. I. R. 1964 Madras 126, Venkataraman, J. has relied on the two Privy Council decisions in Moujilal's case and Kashinath's case and has stated that once the factum of marriage is proved, the presumption is that it is a valid marriage. 20. IN the instant case there is no evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity of the marriage between deben Chowdhurry and Patal Sundari. But Mr. Sambhu Ghose learned counsel for Profulla Chakraborty, has urged that, this presumption will not apply to this case on two grounds. The first is that on the date of marriage the parties were incompetent to marry according to the Hindu form as Deben Chowdhury was a Brahmin and Patal Sundari was of a lower caste. Secondly the admitted case is that the marriage was according to Arya Samaj form and in order to validate such marriage a special statute had to be enacted namely the Arya Marriage Validation Act of 1937. Since neither the bride nor the bridegroom was an Arya Samajist the presumption cannot apply. So far as the first ground is concerned. I have already said that the Calcutta High Court has given its approval to an Anuloma marriage moreover, inter-caste marriages have now received statutory recognition. With regard to the second ground it is true that the parties were not Arya samajists. But the form of marriage that they went through does not appear to me purely the Arya Samaj Form. Patal Sundari speaks of a Ghat i.e., the sacred pitcher and the Narayansila which were placed on the platform and after the vermilion mark was put on her forehead by Deben Chowdhury she was asked to bow down to the Narayan sila : Questions 108, 109, 112 and 113. Patal Sundari speaks of a Ghat i.e., the sacred pitcher and the Narayansila which were placed on the platform and after the vermilion mark was put on her forehead by Deben Chowdhury she was asked to bow down to the Narayan sila : Questions 108, 109, 112 and 113. Narayan Chandra Roy has also given existence of the sacred pitcher and the narayan Sila and that the couple had. bowed down to the Narayan Sila questions 11, 12 and 13. Dinobandhu. Vedashastri no doubt has said that he had conducted an Arya Samaj form of marriage but he admits the presence of the Salgramsila. His positive evidence is that the Salgramsila is not necessary in the Arya Samaj form of marriage and he had nothing to do with it. His assistant might have asked the couple to bow to the Narayan Sila which was not required for his purpose ; Questions 21, 23, 36 42, 43 and 48. 21. THESE depositions obviously lead me to the conclusion that not a purely Arya Samaj form of marriage was gone through by Deben Chowdhury and Patal Sundari. They went to the Narimangal Ashram; they took the help of persons who had affiliations to the Arya Samaj ; but the rites and ceremonies which were performed were not merely those prescribed by the Arya samajists. There were certain additional features usually or ordinarily observed in a Hindu marriage. 22. I have therefore to hold that, the presumption as to the validity of marriage had not been rebutted in the instant case and on this ground also the Issue raised in this suit must be answered in the affirmative. In the result, the caveat is discharged and I direct that Letters of administration as in the case of intestacy in respect of the properties, credits and effects of Debendra Nath Chowdhury, deceased be granted to Patal sundari Devi upon her furnishing the usual security and that such Grant of letters of Administration ' shall have effect throughout the Estate of West Bengal. The plaintiff will get the costs of and incidental to this suit out of the estate of Debendranath Chowdhury, deceased. Profulla Kumar Chakravorty will bear and pay his own costs. Certified for two Counsel. The Administrator pendente-lite is discharged. Filing of accounts by him is dispensed with.