Sadasivam, J.-Appellant Ponnamma filed the suit O.S. No. 41 of 1962, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court. Nagercoil, for partition and separate possession of a half share in the estate of Audikesavaperumal Pillai on the ground that she is his legally wedded wife. She impleaded Kumara Pillai, the legitimate son of Audikesavaperumal Pillai, through his first wife, as the first defendant in the suit, and he was represented by his guardian Kamalamma, as he was found to be a lunatic. The second defendant Kesava Pillai is the son of Kumara Pillai. The third defendant is the Advocate-Receiver appointed to manage the properties of Kumara Pillai. The defendants contested the claim of the appellant that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Audikesavaperumal Pillai. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, has found that the appellant has not proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Audikesavaperumal Pillai and in the result, dismissed the suit with costs. Hence she has come forward with the present appeal. 2. Audikesavaperumal Pillai belonged to Nanjanad Vellala community and he owned extensive properties. He married one Bagavathi, who died only a few months prior to his death. Kumara Pillai, the only son of Audikesavaperumal Pillai, was 48 years old at the the time the suit was filed. The appellant-plaintiff claims to have married Audikesavaperumal Pillai, 45 years prior to the suit, in 1092 M.E., that is in 1918, when she was 24 years old and Audikesavaperumal Pillai was 28 years old. 3. Appellant Ponnamma is a member of the eighth kudi entitled to do service in kudipravarthi in the Suchindram Temple. There were 32 families doing kudipravarthi in Suchindram Temple. Admittedly, appellant Ponnamma was employed in Suchindram Temple after she was initiated by the usual formal ceremony in her seventh year. She stated that tali was tied round her neck by the Brahmin in Vattapalli Madam before Suchindram Thanumoorthy when she was seven years old. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil has referred to the passages in the Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiyar, 1906, Volume II, at page 383 the Travancore State Manual by T. K. Velu Pillai, 1940, Volume II, at pages 723, and 724 and Dr. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil has referred to the passages in the Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiyar, 1906, Volume II, at page 383 the Travancore State Manual by T. K. Velu Pillai, 1940, Volume II, at pages 723, and 724 and Dr. K. K. Pillai’s thesis on Suchindram Temple and found that the kudipravarthi system of Suchindram Temple can be equated to Devadasi system in Tamil Nadu. The kudipravarthi was abolished in the Travancore State in 1105 M.E. The learned Advocate for the appellant did not dispute the finding of the trial Court about the status of the appellant Ponnamma as a kudipravarthi woman. But he argued that it is open to even such a woman to take to a respectable married life and that when it is shown that she lived with Audikesavaperumal Pillai and cohabited with him continuously for over four decades, it should be presumed that there was a valid marriage between them. 5. In Balasundram v. Kamakski Ammal1. Wadsworth, J. has held that, if a dancing girl eschews the calling of her community, and adopts the ordinary life of a respectable married woman and acquires property, that property would devolve in accordance with ordinary rules of Hindu Law, in spite of the fact that she belongs to the dancing girl caste, and such property is impressed with a character which it cannot lose by passing on her death into the hands of a dancing girl practising the calling of her caste and the devolution of property acquired during her widowhood by such a dancing girl after she reverts to what may be described as an immoral life, would not be different, since any subsequent lapse from conjugal virtue would not give her any character other than that of an unchaste married woman. In Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal2, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of proof or existence of a custom governing succession to the estate of dancing girl by which a dasi daughter excluded a married daughter the case has to rest on rules of justice, equity and good conscience as no clear text of Hindu Law applies to such a case and that a just rule to apply in such a case is one of propinquity according to which the married and dasi daughters would take the mother’s property in equal shares. It is true that in spite of appellant Ponnamma being a kudipravarthi woman, it is open to her to contract a legal marriage with Audikesavaperumal Pillai and that a presumption of marriage from long cohabitation could be invoked in her case just as in the case of any other Hindu woman. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gokal Chand v. Pravin Kumari3,the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable, and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption the Court cannot ignore them. One of such circumstances is the fact that Ponnamma is a kudipravarthi who is so low in the social scale, that a member of a respectable community would not incur the odium of contracting a marriage with such a person, though public opinion might tolerate illicit union with such persons. 6. Appellant Ponnamma was born to Veeramoni Iyer, who kept the appellant’s mother belonging to eighth kudi as his concubine. The evidence of P.W. 2 Sivathanoo Pillai is that hundred years back Iyers used to have kudipravar this as concubines. He denied the suggestion that after the tying of the pottu, kudipravarthis lead a loose life. But he admitted that kudipravarthi women were permanently kept concubines of persons who maintained them. The evidence of P.W. 3 Padmanabha Pillai, a classmate of Audikesavaperumal Pillai, is that Audikesavaperumal Pillai asked him about Ponnamma, that he told him that she would be dutiful, that he questioned why-he wanted to have her and that Audikesavaperumal Pillai told him that he wanted to lead a happy and jolly life. Audikesavaperumal Pillai had married in bis own community and had a son by her. P.W. 1, Subramania Pillai, could not give any reason why Audikesavaperumal Pillai married Ponnamma when he had his wife Bagavathi Ammal and had a son Kumara Pillai through her. The evidence of the appellant-plaintiff is that simply because kudipravarthi girls like herself got talis tied in the temple, people say all sorts of things. It is clear from her evidence that she kept one Parameswaram Pillai and had a son through him, that she subsequently married one Sundaram Pillai and had a son through him and that after the death of Sundaram Pillai, she claims to have married Audi-kesavaperumal Pillai. It is clear from her evidence that she kept one Parameswaram Pillai and had a son through him, that she subsequently married one Sundaram Pillai and had a son through him and that after the death of Sundaram Pillai, she claims to have married Audi-kesavaperumal Pillai. According to her, she cursed her fate for two years after the death of Sundaram Pillai and later Audikesavaperumal Pillai came to her and wanted her to be his concubine and offered to pay money. But she claimed to have told him that he should marry her to the knowledge of the villagers. According to her, Audikesavaperumal Pillai came to her with two others and remained in her house for an hour, but she did not know him before and she did not even enquire who he was. She could not say who accompanied him at that time. She and her younger sister alone were in the house at that time. According to her, Audikesavaperumal Pillai came to her five or six days later and entered into a sambandam form of marriage by giving her a saree in the presence of witnesses. But even then she did not know about Audikesavaperumal Pillai. It was only later when he went to his village, Eranipudur, she learnt from him that he had a wife and a son, but she did not know if he and his caste wife were on friendly terms or otherwise. 7. It is in the light of these facts we have to assess the evidence in this case to find out whether it is likely that Audikesavaperumal Pillai would make the appellant belonging to kudipravarthi caste his wife by marrying even in the Sambandam form of marriage. The evidence of the appellant is that Veeramani is her eldest son and that his father is Vadiveeswaram Parameswaram Pillai, a makka vazhi Vellala gentleman. She deposed that Parameswaram Pillai was not keeping her as a concubine. But she also denied having married him. She, however, admitted that she and Parameswarani Pillai were sexually friendly for a yeareven when she was 14 years old and that in the fifteenth year of her age, she begot Veeramani. But in the counter-affidavit filed by her in I.A. No. 529 of 1962 she has stated that her first husband was Parameswaram Pillai, that her second husband was Sundaram Pillai and her third husband was Audikesavaperumal Pillai. But in the counter-affidavit filed by her in I.A. No. 529 of 1962 she has stated that her first husband was Parameswaram Pillai, that her second husband was Sundaram Pillai and her third husband was Audikesavaperumal Pillai. P.W. 1 Subramania Pillai and P.W. 2 Sivathanoo Pillai stated in their evidence that Ponnammal’s first husband was one Parameswaram Pillai. But they admitted that they did not know about the marriage of the appellant Ponnammal with Parameswaram Pillai. There can be no doubt that the appellant Ponnamal has given a different version in her evidence that she did not marry Parameswaram Pillai as such a marriage would render her subsequent marriages with Sundaram Pillai and Audikesavaperumal Pillai invalid as Parameswaram Pillai is said to have died only in 1114 M.E. or so. The appellant pleaded ignorance of Parameswaram Pillai having died in 1114 or 1115 M.E. But in view of the evidence in this case it is not possible to find that the appellant Ponnammal was marred to Parameswaram Pillai. Exhibit B-5 is the certificate of birth relating to Veeramani, the son born to the appellant Ponnammal through Parameswaram Pillai but it does not give the father’s name. The appellant-plaintiff admitted in her evidence that Parameswaram Pillai had a wife of his caste and had a lot of income as a contractor in the temple. It is quite probable that the appellant had only sexual life with Parameswaram Pillai for a couple of years and had a son through him. 8. The evidence of the appellant Ponnammal is that Parameswaran Pillai deserted her 1½ months after she gave birth to Veeramani. According to her, when her son was two years old, that is in 1087 M.E., Sundaram Pillai came to her house, that she did not want to be duped again and so she asked him to marry her if he wanted to do anything with her and that he married her after taking two days time to consider the suggestion thrown by her to him. Sundaram Pillai also had already married n his own caste and he had children at that time . On the first day, Sundaram Pillai talked with the appellant Ponnammal only for five minutes and he did not pay her anything. But on the second occasion, he brought a silk saree and other things and presented them to her in the presence of parties. On the first day, Sundaram Pillai talked with the appellant Ponnammal only for five minutes and he did not pay her anything. But on the second occasion, he brought a silk saree and other things and presented them to her in the presence of parties. Sundaram Pillai died of cholera in his village in 1089 M.E. when Ponnammal was pregnant. Subsequently, Ponnammal delivered a posthumous son, Umathanu, also known as Chella Pillai. 9. P.W. 1 Subramania Pillai stated in cross-examination that Ponnammal got married a second time to Sundaram Pillai in 1087 or 1088 M.E. But he admitted that he had no knowledge of any marriage function between Ponnammal and Sundaram Pillai. He claims to know Veeramani, personally for 20 years or so. He gave the age of Veeramani as 49 years at the time of his giving evidence and if so, Veeramani should have been born in 1090 M.E. But this could not be correct if Sundaram Pillai had married Ponnammal even in 1087 or 1088. P.W. 2 Sivathanoo Pillai referred to Somasundaram Pillai, who is no other than Sundaram Pillai, as the second husband of Ponnammal. But he admitted in cross-examination that he did not known if Ponnammal lived with Somasundaram Pillai as his wife, or as concubine. He deposed that he went to Suchindram only after his 19th year. He was born in 1072 M.E. Hence he could not know about the alleged marriage of Ponnammal with Sundaiam Pillai. According to him, Sundaram Pillai married Ponnammal when Veeramani was eight or nine years old. Veeramani was born in 1085 M.E. as evidenced by Exhibit B-5 and he would have been 8 or 9 years old only in 1093 or 1094 M.E. According to Ponnammal, she married Audikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M.E. 10. P.W. 3 Padmanabha Pillai does not speak to the marriage of Ponnammal with Sundaram Pillai. He admitted that he did not attend any sambandam form of marriage when Sundaram Pillai presented a saree to Ponnammal. But he stated that when Sundaram Pillai joined Ponnammal, Veeramani was less than a year old. But that is not the case of the appellant. P.W. 5 Natarajan was an M.L.A. and an Economic Adviser to the Government of Madras and Andhra and the Government of India. He deposed that he had an elder brother by name Sundaram Pillai, who died when he was very young. But that is not the case of the appellant. P.W. 5 Natarajan was an M.L.A. and an Economic Adviser to the Government of Madras and Andhra and the Government of India. He deposed that he had an elder brother by name Sundaram Pillai, who died when he was very young. He deposed that he used to call Ponnammal as mathani. He stated that even though he went to Ponnammal’s house, he never saw her children. But he admitted that Ponnammal’s son Veeramani studied with him in Primary School and that it was at his instance, he had come to give evidence. He stated that he heard that Chellam Pillai is the son of Sundaram Pillai and that he has another name. But he pleaded ignorance if he was called Umathanu. But it is clear from his evidence that no share was given to the said Chellam Pillai alias Umathanu Pillai in the partition in his brother’s family and that the said Chellam Pillai alias Umathanu never demanded any partition. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly observed that, if really Ponnammal had married Sundaram Pillai, the brother of P.W. 5, Natarajan, it is unlikely that she and her son would have failed to claim a share in the estate of Sundaram Pillai. Exhibit B-6 is the extract of the School Admission Register of Umathanu Pillai. Exhibit A-16 is the abstract of the Admission Register relating to Umathanu Pillai in the Government M.P. School, Suchindram. These documents do not refer to Umathanu Pillai as son of Sundaram Pillai. Thus having regard to the above facts it is impossible to accept the interested assertion of the appellant that she was married to Sundaram Pillai. 11. The appellant has examined herself and P.Ws. 1 to 3 to prove her case that she married Audikesavaperumal Pillai in Vaikasi 1093 M.E. The learned Advocate for the appellant rightly criticised the observation of the learned Subordinate Judge that in the case of proving the status of a person as a legally wedded wife, the marriage should strictly be proved as if the prosecution is proving the guilt of an accused. It is true the burden of proving the marriage between the appellant-plaintiff and Audikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M.E. is on the appellant. It is true the burden of proving the marriage between the appellant-plaintiff and Audikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M.E. is on the appellant. It is also true that having regard to the long lapse of time, it is not possible for the appellant to adduce satisfactory evidence about the marriage and she is certainly entitled to rely on the legal presumption arising from a long continued cohabitation between her and Audikesavaperumal Pillai. The evidence of the appellant as to how Audikesavaperumal Pillai approached her on the first occasion and offered to keep her as his concubine and subsequently came and entered into a sambandam form of "marriage as insisted by her appears to he highly artificial. We have already referred to the fact that she did not even care to ascertain about Audikesavaperumal Pillai who came to marry her. We have already referred to the improbability of Audikesavaperumal Pillai, who had already a wife and a son, entering into another marriage with the appellant. In fact, the evidence of P.W. 3 Padmanabha Pillai shows that Audikesavaperumal Pillai had doubts about the appellant, Ponnammal and that P.W. 3 had to assure him that Ponnammal would be dutiful. If as stated by P.W. 3 Padmanabha Pillai, Audikesavaperumal Pillai wanted to lead a jolly life, it is unlikely that he would have married Ponnammal, having regard to her status as a kudipravarthi woman and her previous life as concubine of Parameswaram Pillai and Sundaram Pillai. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is hardly satisfactory and it has been rejected by the trial Judge who heard and saw them. 12. P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that he is a member of the fifth kudi. But P.W. 2 admitted that his daughter-in-law’s grandmother was doing kudipravarthi as a member of the 32nd house. P.W. 3 Padmanabha Pillai admittedly belongs to the fourth kudi and he is of the same samudayam as that of Ponnammal. P.Ws. 1 to 5 are thus interested in supporting the claim of the appellant. It is true they are neighbours of Ponnammal. P.W. 3 is of the same age as the appellant Ponnammal. P.W. 1 and 2 are younger than the appellant by three years and five years. Ponnammal herself was 24 years old in 1093 M.E. when she claims to have married Audikesavaperumal Pillai. It is true they are neighbours of Ponnammal. P.W. 3 is of the same age as the appellant Ponnammal. P.W. 1 and 2 are younger than the appellant by three years and five years. Ponnammal herself was 24 years old in 1093 M.E. when she claims to have married Audikesavaperumal Pillai. Even if Ponnammal had asked Audikesavaperumal Pillai to have sambandam form of marriage with her if he wanted to have anything to do with her, it is unlikely that these persons who were very young men at that time would have been asked to witness the marriage. P.W. 1 Subramania Pillai stated that he could not say who called him to attend the sambandam marriage between the appellant and Audikesavaperumal in 1093 M.E. Vaikasi. He admitted that he could not give the date of the marriage. He claimed to recollect the year of the marriage as he got employment in that year. But he was not able to remember the other marriages attended by him in that year. According to him, fifteen persons were present at the time of the marriage and five or six among them are alive. P.W. 2 Sivathanoo Pillai deposed that twenty-five men attended the marriage. But it is clear from his evidence that none of the relations of Audikesavaperumal Pillai came for that marriage. He stated that one Ayyavoo Pillai alone came from the village of Audikesavaperumal Pillai for the marriage, that the said Ayyavoo had connection with a kudipravarthi women by name Neelamma, whom he kept as his concubine, and that the said Ayyavoo is dead. It is significant to note that the appellant has not spoken to the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the time of her marriage with Audikesavaperumal Pillai and even P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not speak to the presence of each other at the time of the marriage. It is easy for the appellant to put forward witnesses of the type of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to speak to the simple form of sambandam marriage which consists of only presenting a saree. It is significant to note that none of the relations of Audikesavaperumal Pillai attended his alleged marriage with Ponnammal. According to the appellant, Audikesavaperumal Pillai lived with his wife and children in Eranipudur village till he married her. 1 to 3 to speak to the simple form of sambandam marriage which consists of only presenting a saree. It is significant to note that none of the relations of Audikesavaperumal Pillai attended his alleged marriage with Ponnammal. According to the appellant, Audikesavaperumal Pillai lived with his wife and children in Eranipudur village till he married her. But the evidence of P.W. 1 is that at the time of the marriage, Audikesavaperumal Pillai was living in his own house in Sannadhi Theru, Suchindram. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the appellant was ever taken to the family house in Eranipudur, treated as the wife of Audikesavaperumal Pillai. In fact, Audikesavaperumal Pillai executed the mortgage Exhibit A-3 in favour of the appellant on 7th May, 1960, in which he has described the appellant, Ponnammal, only as the daughter of Veeramani, and’ not as his wife. Having regard to the entire facts and the evidence in the case, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff’s case that she married Audikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M.E. 13. The contesting respondents have examined D.W. 1 Nallaperumal Pillai and D.W. 2 Velayudham Pillai, residents of Suchindram to speak to the fact that Audikesavaperumal Pillai kept the appellant Ponnammal as his concubine only for about thirty years. According to them, kudipravarthi girls, who have thalikattu in the temple do not enter into a marriage either by way of sambandam or by talikattu. According to D.W. 1, Audikesavaperumal Pillai began to have contact with Ponnammal only from 1105 M.E. The second marriage of a Nanjinad Vellala during the lifetime of his first wife is not valid after 1100 M.E. Hence the appellant cannot rely on her continuous living with Audikesavaperumal Pillai as proof of her marriage unless she is able to show that she lived with Audikesavaperumal Pillai from prior to 1100 M.E. It is on account of this fact she has put forward the case that she married Audikesavaperumal Pillai even as early as 1093 M.E. But she had not produced any letter addressed to Audikesavaperumal or other document to show that he lived in her house prior to 1105 M.E. It is true P.W. 5 Natarajan claims to have seen Audikesavaperumal Pillai in Ponnammal’s house when he went there to have tuition under Sankaranarayana Pillai, who had married appellant’s sister Ramalakshmi Ammal. It is in evidence that Sankaranarayana Pillai attended the alleged marriage of the appellant and Audhikesavaperumal Pillai and he is alive. He is the most competent person to speak to the truth of the said marriage and his non-examination has been rightly commented upon by the learned Subordinate Judge, P. W. 5 Natarajan had tuition under Sankaranarayana Pillai in 1920-21 when he was a student of II and III Forms. He was a young boy aged 11 or 12 years at that time. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed that though P.W. 5 Natarajan is a respectable witness, it is not possible to rely on his evidence as a boy of 11 or 12 years that he had seen Audhikesavaperumal Pillai and the appellant Ponnammal living together as husband and wife even in 1920-21. 14. Thus, on a consideration of the entire evidence in this case, we see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant has not proved that she married Audikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M.E. 15. Sri R. Gopalaswami Iyengar relied on several decisions in support of his contention that though the evidence about the actual marriage may not be satisfactory, there is a strong legal presumption not only with regard to the factum of marriage, but also about the performance of the requisite ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage, arising out of the long continued cohabitation between the appellant, Ponnammal and Audikesavaperumal Pillai. The learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with this aspect of the case in paragraphs 20 and 21 of his judgment. He has posed the question, whether the plaintiff’s living with Audikesavaperumal Pillai as husband and wife in the plaintiff’s house for over 34 or even 45 years is sufficient to draw the presumption that they were legally wedded husband and wife. We have already pointed out that such a long cohabitation can be of no avail if it was only subsequent to 1100 M. E. If the evidence of P. Ws. We have already pointed out that such a long cohabitation can be of no avail if it was only subsequent to 1100 M. E. If the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 about the marriage is not accepted, it is not possible to rely on that evidence to prove that Audikesavaperumal Pillai lived with the appellant from 1093 M.E. We have already referred to the evidence of P.W.5 and pointed out how the evidence of a 11 or 12 years boy could not be relied on as proving the fact that Audhikesavaperumal Pillai and the appellant lived together as husband and wife in 1920-21. The appellant stated in her evidence that ever since her marriage in 1093 M.E. Audikesavaperumal Pillai came to live with her and from that time onwards, he used to receive letters addressed to her house address. She stated that even in the year of marriage, Audikesavaperumal Pillai received letters. But she has not produced the letters addressed to Audikesavaperumal Pillai prior to 1100 M.E. 16. In Rajagopal Pillai v. Pakkiam Ammal1, it has been held that where a man and a woman had lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, until the contrary is proved, that they were living together by virtue of a legal marriage and not in concubinage and that this presumption of law is the strongest of legal presumptions and is not lightly to be repelled by mere balance of probabilities and that the evidence repelling that presumption must be strong, distinct and satisfactory. It is clear from the decision that the presumption exists even when there is no positive evidence of any marriage having taken place. It is pointed out in the decision that the marriage state being the chief foundation on which the superstructure of society rests, presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation of spouses is a very strong presumption. The entire case-law has been reviewed in this decision. It is clear from the finding of the trial Court in that case that there was a marriage between the first plaintiff Pakkiam Ammal in that case and Arumugham. This Court pointed out how the strong presumption arising out of long cohabitation strengthened the other circumstances of the case. The entire case-law has been reviewed in this decision. It is clear from the finding of the trial Court in that case that there was a marriage between the first plaintiff Pakkiam Ammal in that case and Arumugham. This Court pointed out how the strong presumption arising out of long cohabitation strengthened the other circumstances of the case. It is pointed out in the decision that all that the defendants in that case attempted to do was merely to create some doubts about the way of marriage between Pakkiam and Arumugham at Madurai and nothing more. It has been rightly pointed out that it is futile to argue on such material that it is sufficient to repel the marriage. 17. In A. Dhinohamy v. W. L. Balhamy,1 the Privy Council has held in a case arising from Ceylon that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage. The following passage has been extracted in the judgment from the judgment of Lord Cranworth in the Scotch leading case known as the Breadalbane case (H.L. Sc. 269) “Marriage can only exist as the result of mutual agreement. The conduct of the parties, and of their friends and neighbours, in other words, habits and repute, may afford strong, and, in Scotland, according to the laws of marriage there existing, unanswerable evidence, that at some unascertained time a mutual agreement to marry was entered into by the parties passing as man and wife. I cannot, however, think it correct to say that habits and repute in any case make the marriage. Repute can obviously have no such effect. It is, perhaps, less inaccurate to speak of habits creating marriage if by the word ‘habits ‘we are to understand the daily acts of persons living together, which imply that they consider each other as husband and wife, and it may be taken as implying an agreement to be what they represent themselves as being. It seems to me, however, even here to be an improper use of the word to say that it makes marriage. It seems to me, however, even here to be an improper use of the word to say that it makes marriage. The distinction is, perhaps, one rather of words than of substance; but I prefer to say that habits and repute afford by the law of Scotland, as, indeed, ‘of all countries, evidence of marriage, always strong, and in Scotland, unless met by counter-evidence, generally conclusive.‘” The respondent Balhamy in that case applied for letters of administration of the estate of Dona Andris on the ground that he married her as his second wife after the death of his first wife. She had Jived with Don Andris for twenty years in the same house and eight children were born to them and they were recognised as husband and wife for a long course of years in family and public functions. 18. In Mohabbat Ali v. Md. Ibrahim Khan,2 it has been held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. The appellant in that case claimed the estate of one Khushdil Khan on the ground that he was his legitimate son. There was an acknowledgment by the father Khushdil Khan which involved the assertion that he was married to the mother of the appellant, and such acknowledgment undoubtedly raised a presumption in favour of marriage between the appellant’s mother and Khushdil Khan. It appears from the evidence in that case that difficulty arose on account of the fact that the mother of the appellant was not a purdanshin lady unlike the other wives of Khushdil Khan and she had been in fact a mud servant and house-keeper in the household of Khushdil Khan and that when the marriage took place she continued her duties in the household. It was observed in the decision that even if that had involved or recognized a lack or disregard of social status, these things were essentially matters for herself and her husband to consider. It was observed in the decision that even if that had involved or recognized a lack or disregard of social status, these things were essentially matters for herself and her husband to consider. It is pointed out that it is no part of the law of India that to have lived and to remain behind the pardah is a necessary part of a lady’s legal marriage or a conclusive evidential fact, and that it is a circumstance to be considered when the fact of the marriage is in issue, but that issue is to be determined on a broad conspectus of the whole situation, including of course the purdah item. 19. We have already referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari1where it is pointed out that the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption the Court cannot ignore them. It was held that on a consideration of the evidence in that case that such circumstances were not wanting and that their cumulative effect warranted the conclusion that the plaintiff in that case had failed to prove the factum of his marriage. The appellant in that case claimed the estate of one Ram Piari as her legally wedded husband. Among the several circumstances mentioned in presumption of marriage from long cohabitation, it is relevant to refer to only one circumstance, namely, that it appeared to the learned Judges as rather unusual that the plaintiff claiming to be a Rajput of high caste should not marry in his own tribe, but should take in marriage a Gurkha girl who was born of very poor parents and belonged to a place far away from where he himself lived. 20. Nagarajamma v. State Bank of India2, it was pointed out that the presumption of marriage could be rebutted by the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant Nagarajamma in that case claimed a fixed deposit made by one Dalavayi Ramaswami as his second wife and heir. Dalavayi Ramaswami who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police had a legally married wife, who was also a party to the suit, and she attacked the status of the appellant Nagarajamma who belonged to ‘Kalavanthula or dancing girl community. The appellant Nagarajamma in that case claimed a fixed deposit made by one Dalavayi Ramaswami as his second wife and heir. Dalavayi Ramaswami who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police had a legally married wife, who was also a party to the suit, and she attacked the status of the appellant Nagarajamma who belonged to ‘Kalavanthula or dancing girl community. The evidence of the defendants’ witnesses that Ramaswami came into contact with the appellant belonging to the dancing girl community while he was away in Markapur in 1937 and that when she was later on brought to the house, his legally wedded wife protested against it as a result of which she was sent away by Ramaswami was accepted by the Court. Having regard to these facts, it was held that the presumption of marriage arising out of the continuous cohabitation for a number of years was rebutted. 21. We have already referred to the passage of Lord Cranworth in Bredalbane case stating that the presumption of marriage arising out of a long cohabitation is only a mode of proving the marriage. Thus if the association of a male and a female did not arise out of marriage, there could be no scope for any such presumption. In Mussamal Jariut-ull Butool v. Mussuimat Hoseinee Begum3, the plaintiff sought to recover the property specified in her plaint by right of inheritance to her uncle Mirsa Abdoola Begg and her husband Abdoos Sumud Begg. The defendant in that case who claimed the status as wife admitted that she was once a prostitute. But she alleged penitence and a change of life. She declared the deceased to have been a man entertaining one mistress whilst his wife was living. It was observed by the Privy Council that the Court had to determine amidst conflicting evidence, whether it was more likely that he should make a woman of that class his wife, and settle on her a very large dower, or that he should in- duce her to live with him as his mistress. It was held that if the Courts below were justified in finding that the original connection was illicit, there could be no legal presumption of marriage. It was held that if the Courts below were justified in finding that the original connection was illicit, there could be no legal presumption of marriage. It is pointed out in the decision that the defendant-appellant is not content to rely on any presumption from length of time ; she alleges and calls witnesses to prove an actual marriage ceremony, accompanied with some degree of publicity, the presence of a witness and the oral assignment of a large sum by way of dower. 22. The several circumstances adverted to by us in the course of the judgment clearly preclude the possibility of invoking the presumption of a legal marriage between the appellant Ponnammal and Audhikesavaperumal Pillai on the basis of a long and continued cohabitation between them. It is really unnecessary to recapitulate the several circumstances. It is clear from what we have stated that the appellant is a kudipravarthi woman whose status corresponds to that of Dasis in Tamil Nadu. After being dedicated to the temple and coming of age, appellant Ponammal had sexual life with Parameswaram Pillai and got a son through him. After Parameswaram Pillai discarded her, she kept one Sundaram Pillai and had a son through him. It was thereafter she came into contact with Audhikesavapeiumal Pillai belonging to Nanjinad Vellala community owning extensive properties. The said Audhikesavaperumal Pillai had his legally wedded wife and a legitimate son at the time when he contracted intimacy with the appellant. The appellant has examined herself and P. Ws. 1 to 3 to prove that she married Audhikesavaperumal Pillai in 1093 M. E. and she has failed in that attempt. The evidence of P. W. 5 Natarajan even taken along with the evidence of the other witnesses is hardly satisfactory to prove that by repute, the appellant was known and treated as the legally wedded wife of Audhikesavaperumal Pillai. Audhikesavaperumal Pillai never took the appellant to his family house in his village Eranipudur. Having regard to the status of the appellant as a kudipravarthi woman and her prior sexual life with Parameswaram Pillai and Sundarm Pillai it is unlikely that Audhikesavaperumal Pillai belonging to a respectable Nanjinad Vellala community owning extensive properties would have entered into a marital alliance even by way of sambandam. Having regard to the status of the appellant as a kudipravarthi woman and her prior sexual life with Parameswaram Pillai and Sundarm Pillai it is unlikely that Audhikesavaperumal Pillai belonging to a respectable Nanjinad Vellala community owning extensive properties would have entered into a marital alliance even by way of sambandam. It is difficult on this state of evidence to presume that such cohabitation commenced prior to 1100 M. E. After 1100 M. E. Adhikesavaperumal Pillai would be committing begamy by entering into any marriage with the appellant and there is therefore no scope for invoking any presumption of marriage from long cohabitation subsequent to 1100 M. E. Even if it is assumed that such cohabitation was prior to 1100 M. E. the presumption could be invoked only if the alleged marriage of the appellant with Parameswaram Pillai is held to be not proved or invalid. Thus it is not possible to ignore the several circumstances which go to completely destroy the presumption, if any, arising out of long cohabitation between the appellant and Audhikesavaperumal Pillai. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we concur with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant-plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Audhikesavaperumal Pillai. The decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.