JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel the parties. 2. The question which cropped up for consideration before the High Court was whether Meenakshi Animal, the first appellant herein was married to the late Subbaraya Pillai. The High Court concluded that the factum of marriage was not proved, but there was otherwise overwhelming evidence to establish that the first appellant was a mistress to the late Pillai. In arriving at such finding the High Court took in aid judgments, wherefrom it was concluded that the first appellant was not the wife of Pillai. Such was the view of the courts below as well. On that finding, the High Court concluded that the benefit of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not available to the first appellant and her offsprings, appellants 2 and 3, even though, it was admitted in the plaint by the respondents that appellants 2 and 3 were the natural children of the late Pillai. So here is a paradoxical situation that the children born from the loins of the late Pillai and from the womb of the first appellant stands denied the status either of legitimate children or even of illegitimate children because of the language of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act which warrants that there should be a void marriage between the parents of such children claiming succession. How, should such marriage be factually proved or inferentially established by long course of conduct? This Court of late has leaned in favour of the view that long course of-conduct by itself establishes marriage wherefrom off springs can be legitimized. Short of that whether any claim is entertainable on the admission of the respondents that those off springs were illegitimate children is also the question. There are four decisions of this Court being, S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi & Ors., 1994 (1) SCC 460 , Gurnam Kaur (Smt.) & Anr. v. Puran Singh & Ors., 1996 (2) SCC 507. M. Govindraju v. K Munisami v. Gounder (D) & Ors., 1996 (5) SCC 467 and Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali & Anr. v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni & Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 681 in which children have been legitimised on the finding that their mother by a long course of conduct was taken to be as the wife of the persons concerned. M. Govindraju v. K Munisami v. Gounder (D) & Ors., 1996 (5) SCC 467 and Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali & Anr. v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni & Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 681 in which children have been legitimised on the finding that their mother by a long course of conduct was taken to be as the wife of the persons concerned. We have therefore thought it appropriate to send this matter back to the High Court for re-consideration since the entire evidence is in Tamil and the exercise of having it translated can well be avoided by having a revised opinion on the subject from the High Court. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and put the matter back to its file for re-decision in the light of the aforementioned four cases and other cases of the kind as also in accordance with law. 3. Any interim orders which prevailed in favour of the appellants while the second appeal was pending in the High Court shall stand automatically revived. No costs.