Judgment : The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.645 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court at Thirupathur, North Arcot District, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur, dated 19. 1992 in A.S. No.40 of 1991 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge dated 33. 1981 in O.S. No.645 of 1979. .2. The plaintiff claiming to be the wife of late Nataraja Moopan, filed the suit of partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit items 1 to 3 and 7 and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of items 4, 5 and 6 of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the properties comprised in suit items 4 to 6 belonged to one Kujjali Moopan, who had three sons and the eldest Thennaiya Moopan was the manager of the Joint Hindu family and from the income of the said joint family properties, the suit items 1 to 3 were purchased in his capacity as the manager of the joint family, that dispute arose in 1960 between the brothers and the ancestral properties have been given to Chinnappan Moopan and Duraisamy Moopan, while Thenniah Moopan received items 1 to 3 family properties. The further claim was that Thenniah Moopan died and the defendants and one Nataraja Moopan are the legal heirs of Thenniah Moopan and items 1 to 3 were allotted to the defendants in 1966, and Nataraja Moopan acquired items 4 to 6 of the suit properties and was in enjoyment of the same. On 13. 1977, the said Nataraja Moopan are the legal heirs of Thenniah Moopan and items 1 to 3 were allotted to the defendants in 1966, and Nataraja Moopan acquired items 4 to 6 of the suit properties and was in enjoyment of the same. On 13. 1977, the said Nataraja Moopan died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff as the only heir, the two sons of the plaintiff having died earlier. Hence, the suit for the relief of partition. 3. On 13. 1977, the said Nataraja Moopan died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff as the only heir, the two sons of the plaintiff having died earlier. Hence, the suit for the relief of partition. 3. The case of the first defendant adopted by the other defendants was that the plaintiff was aged 45 and not 25, that the defendant’s brother Nataraja Moopan was a sickly person from his boyhood, that the plaintiff deserted her husband and eloped with one Duraisamy Gounder, that the marriage of the plaintiff with Natarajan was dissolved and divorce was effected in a caste panchayat about 26 years back, that the plaintiff later married Duraisamy Gounder, who is a beedi worker at Jolarpet and has begotten through him one daughter aged 13 years and one son aged 9 years and therefore, she had no right to claim any share in the properties of late Natarajan claiming to be his wife. .4. On the above claim and counter claims, the suit was tried and oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both sides. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was the wife of Nataraja Moopan at the time of his death, despite desertion and her living separately and that the divorce pleaded has not been properly proved by any acceptable evidence. The trial court also, in respect of unchastity attributed to the wife, has chosen to place reliance upon the decision in Jayalakshmi v. T.V.G. Iyer, A.I.R. 1972 Mad. 357: 82 L.W. 82, to come to the conclusion that she can succeed as a heir to her deceased husband. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants to substantiate the plea of divorce in a caste panchayat did not evoke the confidence of the trial court for its acceptance. Aggrieved, the defendants pursued the matter on appeal before the Sub-Court. The learned first appellate Judge also agreed with the findings of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the above second appeal. .5. Mr.Prabhakar, . learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the courts below have miserably failed to consider and give due weight in law to the plea of divorce in a village and caste Panchayat fortified by Ex.A-4 dated 6. 1978, which was a reply notice issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel, apparently in reply to the notice dated 29. 5.1978 marked as Ex.A-3. 1978, which was a reply notice issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel, apparently in reply to the notice dated 29. 5.1978 marked as Ex.A-3. I have been taken through the findings of the court below. The mere mention in Ex.A-4, reply notice issued by the counsel for the defendants using the term “former husband” is no proof of any divorce of dissolution of the marriage of the plaintiff with her husband and it is no wonder that both the courts below have cho sen to disbelieve the case of divorce in a caste/ village panchayat, as an afterthought. Even that apart, I find that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove the alleged dissolution of legal marriage between the spouses and there is no serious controversy over the position that the plaintiff and Nataraja Moopan, the brother of the defendants, were married. The question is, how and in what manner, the legal dissolution could be brought into effect or force of such a marital relationship, which has been always held to be under the Hindu Law as sacrosanct’ relationship and tie. The legal method of effecting dissolution or sustaining the claim of divorce between husband and wife is only by or under a declaration by the competent court dissolving the marital tie or relationship. Of course, exception is also permitted in cases where it is proved by the parties that custom existed in a particular community to dissolve marriages also in community Panchayat or in the presence of and its sanction of elders in the community. The question is whether such a plea of any custom has been specifically pleaded and proved to exist, leave alone the absence of any iota of materials to formally prove the so-called dissolution of the marriage ties between the plaintiff and her late husband by the alleged divorce said to have been granted in the community panchayat. The mere plea of divorce said to have been granted is no proof. Such a plea which involves serious consequences, has to be proved by documentary evidence of the actual holding of the community or village panchayat and the grant of such divorce in the form of a muchalika or an agreement de hors the validity or otherwise of the same in law. Even that factum of grant of divorce has not been shown or proved to exist in this case. Even that factum of grant of divorce has not been shown or proved to exist in this case. The oral evidence tendered on behalf of the defendants by examining two persons, as noticed earlier, did not evoke the proper confidence of the courts below. In the teeth of the position that both the courts below have chosen to disbelieve the oral evidence and the attendant and surrounding circumstances of the case, namely, that even in Ex.A-4 no such specific plea of divorce has been taken by the defendants, the courts below cannot be found fault with in their concurrent findings recorded with regard to the relationship of the plaintiff with her deceased husband holding that it survived even on the date of death of late Natarajan, the husband of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find any patent error of law or perversity of approach in the findings recorded by both courts below. 6. For all the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the disposal of the second appeal, no further orders are required in C.M.P. No.421 of 1995. Which shall stand dismissed.