( 11 )
acknowledged to be his wife by the husband’s family; and thatduring such coverture the second plaintiff was bom. An extractfrom the register of births was put in evidence in proof of theregistration of second plaintiff’s birth as the child of Sohondirala.The Commissioner held in favour of the plaintiffs and enteredjudgment for them. Defendants appealed.
Alwis, for appellants.
Sampayo, for respondents.
3rd August, 1897. Withers, J—
Id my opinion there is quite sufficient evidence of'marriage tojustify the Commis ioner finding that the first plaintiff was married,according to Kandyan customs, to Sohondirala, and that the otherplaintiff is the child of that marriage. Mr. Alwis contended thatthe ceremonies of the marriage were not given sufficiently indetail; but I think the presumption in favour of legitimacy savesthe plaintiff from the necessity of giving such minute proof ofthe ceremonies attending the marriage. She was duly conductedin diga to Sohondirala’s house, lived with him till his death, andthe child was the issue of the union. His family appeared torecognize the marriage at the time. This occurred before Ordi-nance No. 3 of 1870 came into force, so that the marriage did notrequire to be registered. The title to half, then, being in theplaintiffs, it was incumbent on the defendants to displace it byproving ten years’ adverse and uninterrupted possession previousto action. This they have failed to do, and I therefore affirm thejudgment, which I think is eminently a right one. It sustainsthe true rights of the respective families.
1897.August 3.