M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD appellant's learned advocate. Respondents are represented, but I have not called upon them. ( 2 ) APPELLANT's learned advocate has seriously assailed the finding of the trial Court whereby the respondent has been held to be the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Mastanappa. It is the case of the present appellant that, she has produced adequate material before the trial Court for the purpose of establishing that deceased Mastanappa and she who were residing together for a long period of time and that he has treated her as his wife. She has also produced a photograph of the two of them which according to her is the wedding photograph. In sum and substance what is vehemently contended by the appellant's learned advocate is that, the trial court ignored the evidence produced by the present appellant in support of her contention that there was a long period of cohabitation between them and that along with other supporting material, this was sufficient to establish her status as the lawful wedded wife of deceased Mastanappa. I need to observe here that, the decision in this proceeding is of some consequence because the original plaintiff claimed that, she was the lawfully wedded wife and that the five children born to her were born out of wedlock between her and deceased Mastanappa. On this basis she and her children claimed to be the heirs in respect of all dues that accrue to the deceased Mastanappa. Defendant No. 2 who is the present appellant had contended that, she was the real wife and consequently, the authorities had not made any payments to either of the two women. It was pursuant to this situation that the suit came to be filed before the trial Court for a declaration of status as far as the plaintiff and her children are concerned. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, after considering the oral evidence has placed considerable reliance on some documentary evidence which he considered conclusive. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are the sons of the deceased Mastanappa have produced their school records to show the father's name as H. Mastanappa. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, after considering the oral evidence has placed considerable reliance on some documentary evidence which he considered conclusive. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are the sons of the deceased Mastanappa have produced their school records to show the father's name as H. Mastanappa. This particular factum has been seriously disputed by the present appellant and it is contended by her learned Advocate that, the initial of the deceased was 'g' and the reference to the initial 'h' in the certificates would indicate that 'g' pertains to some other person. The learned trial Judge has, after hearing, the parties accepted the explanation that since Mastanappa belonged to the harijan community, that in all probability the prefix of the letter 'h' represented his community and not his name. This explanation is not of much consequence because, to my mind, we have on record the oral evidence of the various witnesses which does in turn establish that they are the wife and sons of the deceased Mastanappa. The school records are only supportive and therefore, as long as the name basically tallies, the circumstances under which the initial 'h' appears therein, is not of much consequence. There is also another aspect with reference which to my mind, virtually clinches the entire case. The plaintiff had contended that, she is the lawfully wedded wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are her sons. That the deceased mastanappa did acknowledge them as such is clearly evident from the fact that in the relevant Government records, he has designated the two of them as his beneficiaries to receive the terminal dues in the event of his death. This is a very strong piece of evidence and the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on it for the purpose of deciding the case. ( 4 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate had placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala and Others v Rukmini Bai and Others. The Division bench had occasion to consider one aspect of the law namely, the effect of a long period of cohabitation between a man and a woman. ( 4 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate had placed strong reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala and Others v Rukmini Bai and Others. The Division bench had occasion to consider one aspect of the law namely, the effect of a long period of cohabitation between a man and a woman. Relying on several decisions and particularly the supreme Court decision in S. P. S. Balasubramaniyam v suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others , as also a few other decisions both under Indian law and English law, the division Bench held in that case that the acknowledgment by the deceased defendant No. 1 as his wife and the unimpeachable evidence of the fact that, they have lived together for a long period of time and that several children were born to them raised the presumption of a valid marriage. A careful reading of that decision however, indicates that apart from the presumptive aspect the Division Bench essentially relied on the virtual finding that, after the relationship between the deceased narayana Rao and his first wife had completely broken down that there was a valid marriage solemnized between the defendant No. 1 and the deceased in the year 1948. ( 5 ) I do agree, as pointed out by the appellant's learned Advocate that, in cases of this type a long period of cohabitation between the parties is a very strong circumstance and that in the absence of any other cogent and absolutely convincing material that it could also raise the presumption before a Court a valid marriage. One needs to take cognizance of the fact that this presumption is acceptable in cases dehors other better material and this view finds support in a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Surendra Mohan Das bhoumick and Another v State of West Bengal and Others , wherein the Court clarified that the presumption is a rebuttable one. ( 6 ) IF there would have been no better evidence, the appellant would have been entitled to contend that having established that the deceased and she resided together for a long period of time and if they cohabited as husband and wife, she must have the status of lawfully wedded wife. ( 6 ) IF there would have been no better evidence, the appellant would have been entitled to contend that having established that the deceased and she resided together for a long period of time and if they cohabited as husband and wife, she must have the status of lawfully wedded wife. In this case however, there is better evidence placed before the Court both in the form of oral evidence of the plaintiff and her other witnesses and the documents which they produced in support of their respective cases. This evidence out-weigh the presumptive evidence which the defendant No. 2 who was the present appellant relied upon. It is in the light of this position, that the learned trial Judge decreed the suit and having heard the learned Counsel at considerable length and considered both the record of the case and the law on the point, I am of the view that the decision of the trial Court both on facts as also in law is absolutely faultless. There is literally no ground on which that decision can be assailed and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by merely admitting this appeal merely because, this is a regular first appeal. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and stands disposed of. --- *** --- .