The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of an illegitimate child in inheriting the self-acquired property of a deceased father is determined by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically Section 16 and Section 3(1)(j). The court emphasized that long cohabitation does not confer the status of a legal wife and that an illegitimate son does not have the right to inherit the property of the deceased father, especially if the property is self-acquired and there is no valid will in favor of the illegitimate child.

( 1 ) THE short question involved in this appeal, is about status of illegitimate son in the self-acquired property of deceased father. The facts found proved in the present case are as under:

( 2 ) DECEASED Sarua had kept as wife, deceased plaintiff Khema Bai, from whom, appellant was born, Khema Bai was residing separate from married wife of Sarua, from whom, defendant Barelal was born.

( 3 ) DURING his life-time, Sarua had partitioned his agricultural holding between himself and his son Barelal and appellant. The dispute arose between the parties after the death of Sarua regarding agricultural land, which fell ,to the share of deceased. Defendant/respondent No. 1 Barelal got mutation of the disputed land in his name after death of his father and also claimed it on the basis of 'will' Ex. D/1. However, appellant brought a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation for partition claiming l/3rd share in the suit property challenging 'will' as fake and false and further claimed the suit land on the basis of an oral 'will' by deceased Sarua in his favour.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court decreed the suit while in first appeal, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, against which plaintiff/appellant has come up in this second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (I) Whether, after long cohabitation between deceased Sarua and plaintiff Khema Bai, there is a presumption of marriage between Khema Bai and Sarua? (ii) Whether, after the death of Sarua, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property?

( 5 ) SO far as findings of first Appellate Court are concerned, regarding Khema Bai, being kept as wife, the learned Counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality or perversity therein. It is not disputed that married wife of Sarua was alive when mother of appellant was kept as mistress by the deceased. There is no pleading to the effect that there was any custom in the community of the parties for marrying a second wife, when, first married wife was alive. In the circumstances, no presumption of valid marriage, can be drawn on the basis of long cohabitation when his first wife was alive.

( 6 ) SINCE, the first Appellate Court, had arrived at a conclusion that the oral 'will' is neither permissible nor found proved in the present case, and the learned Counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the first Appellate Court, it is immaterial to go into the details of evidence, in respect of any oral 'will' in favour of plaintiff/appellant.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Apex Court, in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director Consolidation, wherein, it has been pointed out that where for 50 years, a man and a woman are living as husband and wife, strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock. In the case of Maharsai Dani v. Thakuri Lagna, of this Court, it has been observed that normally, a woman lives with a man only after lawful marriage. Concubinage is an exception and where a man and woman live together as husbandand wife and have been treated as such, by their relations and in the society, in which, they live, there is strong presumption about their being lawfully married. The presumption is no doubt rebuttable and may be rebutted by positive evidence to show that the woman started living with the man as a concubine or that there being some legal or other impediment to marriage lawful union was improbable. In such a case, it would be necessary for the party asserting the marriage to prove it by direct evidence of usual ceremonies of marriage but otherwise the presumption is enough.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rashamlal v. Balwant Singh, where it was pointed out that neither Hindu Law nor Hindu religi