Judgment : Of the six defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. .2. The plaintiff Madheswaran filed the suit for partition of his 8/21 shares in the suit properties and rendition of accounts, and that has been decreed. He filed the suit alleging as follows: His father was one Varada Odayar. He married two wives Angammal and Sampoornammal. He died in the year 1959. Angammal died on 4. 1972. Defendants 1 and 2 are respectively the son and daughter of Angammal. The said Sampoornammal is the third defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 are her daughters. The plaintiff and his mother-the third defendant are residing in one house that belonged to Varada Odayar. Varada Odayar left the suit properties which were owned by him, and his properties were in the management of Angammal till her death. The plaintiff as co-owner is entitled to 8/21 shares in the suit properties and the 1st defendant would be entitled to 8/21 shares and the deceased Angammal and 3rd defendant together would be entitled to 1/21 share and defendants 2 and 4 to 6 are each entitled to 1/8 share. After the death of Angammal the 1st defendant has taken over the management of the suit properties. The plaintiffs attempt to get partition of his share of the suit properties failed and therefore he had to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. They denied that Sampoornammal was married by Varada Odayar. They contended that Sampoornammal was married to one Siddhappa Chetty of Rasipu-ram and to them three children were born. While that marriage was subsisting the third defendant developed illicit intimacy with Varada Odayar from 1950. The plaintiff can at best be an illegitimate child of Varada Odayar. Defendants 1 and 2 and deceased Angammal alone are the heirs of Varada Odayar and as such they are entitled to the properties left by him. Thus neither the third defendant nor her children are entitled to any share in the suit properties. In any event the defendants 1 and 2 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and as such they have prescribed title by adverse possession. 4. Defendants 3 to 6 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. 5. In any event the defendants 1 and 2 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and as such they have prescribed title by adverse possession. 4. Defendants 3 to 6 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the status of the third defendantas the wife of the Varada Odayar has already been decided in prior proceedings and therefore the defendants 1 and 2 cannot reopen that decision in the present suit. .6. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case accepted the case of the plaintiff that his mother Sampoornammal has been married to Varada Odayar and it rejected the case of defendants 1 and 2 that she was only a mistress of Varada Odayar. It further held that the marriage had taken place before 1949 when the Madras Begami Prevention Act, 1949 came into force and therefore the marriage was legal and valid. It rejected the case of the defendants that they have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession against the plaintiff. It also held that the decision in the earlier proceedings A.S.No.212 of 1971 cannot operate as res judicata in the present suit. It rejected the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to rendition of accounts. On these grounds the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 8/21 shares in the suit property. It directed the plaintiff to include in the suit property bearing door N0.8-C, Ganapathy Vilas Rice Mill Road, Rasipuram involved in the prior proceedings. Accordingly the trial court passed a decree against the defendants. As against this the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the appeal. The plaintiff also has filed a cross objection against the disallowance of his claim for rendition of accounts. 7. It is contended by Mr.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 that, (i) the finding of the trial court that the third defendants Sampoornammal was legally wedded wife of Varada Odayar is erroneous; (ii) its further finding that the marriage took place before the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act, 1949 is also erroneous; and (iii) the trial court’s rejection of the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that they have prescribed title by adverse possession also is incorrect. These are the points that arise for consideration in the appeal. 8. As regards the first point, the case of the plaintiff is that his mother Sampoornammal was married to Varada Odayar and as such she was his wife. The contesting defendants would contend that the third defendant was married to one Siddhappa Chetty of Rasipuram and through him she begot three children. As regards this contention of the defendants there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Practically the defendants have given up their case that the third defendant was married to Siddhappa Chetty and through him she begot three children. On the other hand the third defendant has examined herself as D.W.1 and supported the case of the plaintiff. She has asserted that she was married to Varada Odayar 35 years ago in the month of Chithirai in a Perumal Temple at Kodumudi, and since then throughout she had been living with him in his house N0.8-C, Ganapathy Vilas Rice Mill Road, Rasipuram. She has further deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 were born to them and the fourth defendant who is the eldest of the children is now aged 33 years. Considering the date when she has given the evidence, as per her deposition, she should have married Varada Odayar in 1946. Of course she has stated that she does not remember the year of the marriage. But considering the fact that she was an illiterate village woman, that is not material. It is argued that she has stated that her mother was alive at the time of the alleged marriage but neither she nor anyone of her relations attended the marriage and this would show that therecould not have been a marriage as she would claim. But she has stated that the relations of Varada Odayar attended the marriage. It must be remembered that the marriage is said to have been celebrated 35 years ago. Therefore, it is very difficult for her to remember the particulars such as the persons who attended the marriage and how many in number and what ceremonies were performed (See: Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1557). It must be remembered that the marriage is said to have been celebrated 35 years ago. Therefore, it is very difficult for her to remember the particulars such as the persons who attended the marriage and how many in number and what ceremonies were performed (See: Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1557). It must be remembered that at that time Varada Odayar was already married to Angammal and therefore it is quite possible that Varada Odayar did not want the relations of the third defendant to know his act and therefore he avoided their presence in the marriage. As stated above, the evidence of third defendant is that the marriage was in a Perumal Temple in Kodumudi, and she has further stated that they went there in a bus. Apparently the place of marriage was away from the place of the third defendant. Through Varada Odayar the third defendant has as many as four children. It is the evidence of the second defendant (D.W.2) herself that Varada Odayar was having the third defendant as his concubine for the past about 30 years. This long cohabitation and begetting as many as four children would lead to a very strong presumption that they should have married. It is also in evidence that the third defendant has been living in door No.8-C, Ganapathy Vilas Rice Mill Road, which is one of the houses of Varada Odayar. From these facts in my view it can be very satisfactorily held that Varada Odayar had married the third defendant. The trial court has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghuvir Kumar v. Smt.D.P.Shanmugha Vadivu, (1970)2 M.L.J. 193 , for the proposition that from long cohabitation a marriage can be presumed. 9. It is argued that in the plaint, particulars of marriage such as the date, month and year, and the place has not been given and even after filing the written statement contending that the third defendant was not married to Varada Odayar and she was only a concubine of his, the plaintiff has not chosen to give the necessary particulars of the marriage and this would show that the alleged marriage must be not true. But it has been clearly averred in the plaint that the third defendant is the second wife of Varada Odayar, and the plaintiff was born to him. But it has been clearly averred in the plaint that the third defendant is the second wife of Varada Odayar, and the plaintiff was born to him. Therefore non-mentioning of the particulars of marriage in the plaint is not so material as contended for the appellants-defendants. 10. It is then contended that to have the presumption of legal marriage, besides long cohabitation, it must also be proved that the man and woman lived as husband and wife, and there is no such proof in the present case. But long cohabitation for over three decades and begetting as many as four children itself would show that they lived as husband and wife, and as such no special evidence in this regard is called for. A reading of the above said ruling Raghuvir Kumar v. Smt.D.P.Shanmugha Vadivu, (1970) 2 M.L.J. 193 , relied on by the trial court would show that no such evidence is necessary. 11. It is further argued that no presumption of marriage out of long cohabitation would arise in the case of second marriage. But a similar plea taken in the same Division Bench case Raghuvir Kumar v. Smt.D.P.Shanmugha Vadivu (1970)2 M.L.J. 193 , has been repelled by the learned judges stating that- “In our opinion the mere fact that there was an earlier marriage subsisting in this case, it cannot be considered sufficient to rebut the presumption of a marriage arising out of long cohabitation and repute”. I am in complete agreement with this view expressed by the Division Bench. Another piece of evidence that may be considered is that the plaintiff has sent a notice dated 5. 1978, a copy of which is Ex.A-1 stating that the plaintiff is the son born to Varada Odayar through his second wife, and claiming partition of the properties left by Varada Odayar, and to this no reply has been sent for six months when the suit was filed. Thus considering, I agree with the finding of the trial court that the third defendant was the legally wedded wife of Varada Odayar. 12. Taking up the second point, as already stated, from the evidence one can come to the conclusion that the marriage took place in or about 1946 and not after 1949 when the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act came into force. There is nothing even to suggest that the marriage should have taken place subsequent to 1949. 12. Taking up the second point, as already stated, from the evidence one can come to the conclusion that the marriage took place in or about 1946 and not after 1949 when the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act came into force. There is nothing even to suggest that the marriage should have taken place subsequent to 1949. Therefore the trial court is also correct in holding that the marriage had taken place before the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act, 1949. 13. Regarding the third point that in any event the defendants 1 and 2 have prescribed title to the suit properties by ouster, there is absolutely no evidence regarding this. Hence rightly the trial court has rejected this contention taken before it. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal. 14. As regards cross objection no argument was advanced. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross objection also is dismissed. No costs.