IMPORTANT POINT
A legal presumption arises on the admitted fact that if a man and woman were living together as husband & wife and the said presumption has not been rebutted. In such a case there is no need to prove factum of marriage.

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs who filed a suit seeking injunction against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the district of Ahmednagar. The said suit was registered as Suit No. 200 of 1985. It was alleged that the common ancestor Bhanudas had two sons Panditrao and Gajanan. Plaintiffs are the sons of Panditrao from his marriage with Shevantabai and the defendants are the sons of Gajanan. The further case of the plaintiffs was that there had been a petition between Panditrao and Gajanan and the suit property admeasuring 3.18 hectares in village Kongoni had been allotted to the heirs of Panditrao. Panditrao died in the year 1976 leaving behind his sons the plaintiffs and the widow Shevantabai. Shevantabai died in 1977 and thereafter the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the suit property. The defendants however managed to get their names entered in the revenue record by way of mutation. Against the said order of mutation the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appellate authority had set aside the order of mutation in favour of the defendants. But still the defendants having obstructed the plaintiffs possession, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking relief of injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and took the stand that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Panditrao, they also took the stand that the property is not ancestral property of the plaintiffs as alleged and the plaintiffs are never in possession of the same. According to defendants they being the sons of brother of Panditrao are the only legal heirs and said Panditrao had died without marrying anybody. On these pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed three issues and recorded the following findings :

(1) Plaintiffs have established the fact that Shevantabai is the wife of Panditrao which is corroborated from the admission of defendant no. 1 that Shevantabai was living with Panditrao and she was looking after him while he was ill.

(2) Plaintiffs are sons of Shevantabai who are begotten from Panditrao.

(3) The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Panditrao and are entitled to claim the property which came to Pandi-trao on partition between Panditrao and father of the defendants.

(4) The disputed property being the separate property of Panditrao, plaintiffs are the only heirs to the same. Plaintiff No. 1 is residing in the suit land by erecting vasti and it is admitted that after death of Panditrao plaintiffs is in continuous possession of the suit land.

3. With these conclusions, the suit was decreed with the declaration that the suit land belongs to Panditrao, the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are the legal heirs and defendants were restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

4. The defendants in the aforesaid suit had also filed a suit for injunction which had been registered as Civil Suit No. 22 of 1985 and the said suit was accordingly dismissed. Two appeals were preferred against both the judgments which were registered as Civil Appeal No. 199/88 and Civil Appeal No. 200/88. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings and conclusion of the Trial Judge and allowed these appeals. The Appellate Court came to hold that there has been no evidence of marriage between Panditrao and Shevantabai though Shevanta-bai was living with Panditrao and both of them were having illegitimate relationship. He further held that mere residing together as husband and wife does not ipso facto prove that their marriage is legal and valid and therefore Ranganath and others, plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 200 of 1985 are not entitled to inherit the property of deceased Pandit. The lower Appellate Court further came