JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal u/s 100, Civil Procedure Code. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 30-11-1989 at the time of admission of this appeal:-- Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the marriage of the appellant No. 1 with deceased Gopalsingh, was invalid. Whether the Court below was right in interpreting the Will as genuine and conferring title on the deceased Gopalsingh's nephew Mangleshwar, to the exclusion of the wife and children, i.e. the appellants-plaintiffs. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that defendant, Vishnu Deo Singh and Gopal Singh were brothers. They were jointly holding 18.52 acres of land of Khasra Nos. 19, 20, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 50/2, 51, 59/2, 236, 403, 404, 405, 406 and 407 (17 Nos.) in village Karodia Tehsil Gopadbanas, District Sidhi. Gopal Singh had half share in these lands. Plaintiff Brijbasua claimed that she is legally wedded wife of Gopal Singh and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children through her. Gopal Singh has died in 1980. The plaintiffs claim that they are his heirs and are entitled to his half share in these lands. They have asked for partition and separate possession of the half share. The defendant has pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 Brijbasua is Kol by caste and there was no marriage between her and Gopal Singh. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are not his off-springs. By an amendment it has been pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 became ready to live with Gopal Singh on condition that she would marry him in future and she would serve and look after him as her husband. On this condition Gopal Singh executed the Will dated 16-12-1977 (Ex. P-3) in her favour but she did not stay with him and took another man as her husband. Therefore, Gopal Singh cancelled that Will by the document dated 28-4-1979 (Ex. D-2) and executed his last Will dated 21-12-1979 (Ex. D-1) in favour of the defendant's son Mangleshwar. The trial Court held on the basis of documentary and oral evidence that the plaintiff No. 1 is legally wedded wife of Gopal Singh and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children. D-2) and executed his last Will dated 21-12-1979 (Ex. D-1) in favour of the defendant's son Mangleshwar. The trial Court held on the basis of documentary and oral evidence that the plaintiff No. 1 is legally wedded wife of Gopal Singh and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children. The main ground for arriving at this finding was that the plaintiff No. 1 lived with Gopal Singh as his wife for more than twenty years. Plaintiff No. 2 Rampal was his eldest son and he was 19 years of age at the time of the institution of the suit on 19-4-1982. She spent the prime of her life with Gopal Singh and gave birth to five children through him. She was with him until he breathed his last and she never went to any other man. The first Appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court has held that Brijbasua is not the wife of Gopal Singh but she was his 'keep' and therefore, the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his illegitimate children. They do not acquire any rights in the share of Gopal Singh in the lands in dispute in view of the Will dated 21-12-1979 (Ex. D-1). Even the first of Appellate Court could not discard the finding that plaintiff No. 1 Brijbasua lived with Gopal Singh as his wife for more than 20 years and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children through him. The inference drawn by the first Appellate Court is that she was the keep or concubine of Gopal Singh and the children are illegitimate. Brijbasua (P.W. 1) has deposed that she is wife of Gopal Singh. She has five children through him. Her testimony has been corroborated by Rizvan (P.W. 2). He has deposed that he was living behind the degree college for the last 10 years and he was seeing Gopal Singh living with her. Lallu (P.W. 3), has also stated that Gopal Singh had brought Brijbasua as his wife and five children were born to her through him in village Karodia. This witness is also resident of that village. Gopal Singh has described Brijbasua as his wife in the registered Will dated 16-12-1977 (Ex. P-3) executed by him. Lallu (P.W. 3), has also stated that Gopal Singh had brought Brijbasua as his wife and five children were born to her through him in village Karodia. This witness is also resident of that village. Gopal Singh has described Brijbasua as his wife in the registered Will dated 16-12-1977 (Ex. P-3) executed by him. The execution of this Will is admitted by the defendant in his amended written statement and he claims that this Will was later on cancelled by the registered document dated 28-4-1979 (Ex. D-2). In the Will Ex. P-3 there is a recital by Gopal Singh that Brijbasua is his wife and he has four sons and one daughter through her. Ramjiawan (D.W.6) is the defendant's witness. He is resident of village Karodia. He has admitted in cross- examination that Brijbasua was living with Gopal Singh as his wife and she had five children through him. Thus it is firmly established that Brijbasua lived and cohabited with Gopal Singh as his wife for more than 20 years and they had five children out of this copulation. Gopal Singh was not married to any other woman before he brought Brijbasua as his wife. She was also not having any other husband either before or after the death of Gopal Singh. It is not of much significance that Brijbasua belonged to Kol caste. If Gopal Singh chose her as his wife then her status as wife is not reduced because she belonged to inferior caste and Gopal Singh was a Thakur. Anuloma marriage is well recognised. The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage. Long and continuous cohabitation for a number of years raises the presumption of marriage. Mere fact that direct evidence of marriage which took place many years ago is not available cannot displace the presumption. If children are born to such a couple, the presumption of the marriage is strengthened and they would be presumed to be legitimate. The presumption does not get mitigated or weakened merely because there may not be positive evidence of the ceremony of marriage having taken place. After lapse of time the priest who performed the marriage ceremony and other witnesses disappear and no evidence except the hard fact of the husband and wife living together survives. Formalities, customs and rites for valid marriage would also be presumed to have been observed. After lapse of time the priest who performed the marriage ceremony and other witnesses disappear and no evidence except the hard fact of the husband and wife living together survives. Formalities, customs and rites for valid marriage would also be presumed to have been observed. The habit and repute would get the weightage. Section 50 of the Evidence Act provides that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact. u/s 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct. Thus the opinion expressed by the persons watching the conduct of a man and woman living as husband and wife is relevant and material. In AIR 1994 133 (SC) . It has been held by the Supreme Court that if a man and woman live together for long years as husband and wife then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two. This presumption is, however, rebuttable. In Shantinath Ramu Danole and Another Vs. Jambu Ramu Danole and Others, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the evidence of general reputation for purpose of proof or disproof of a marriage is admissible. Reliance was placed on illustration (a) to section 50 of the Evidence Act which states: The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant. Living together as husband and wife raises a strong presumption of marriage. Again in Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali and another Vs. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni and another, it was found that the man and woman lived together for long years as husband and wife. In such circumstances even in absence of proof, a rebuttable presumption of valid marriage arises. In view of the above discussion the finding of the trial Court that Brijbasua is legally married wife of Gopal Singh and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children is correct. They are legitimate children. In such circumstances even in absence of proof, a rebuttable presumption of valid marriage arises. In view of the above discussion the finding of the trial Court that Brijbasua is legally married wife of Gopal Singh and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are his children is correct. They are legitimate children. The view taken by the first Appellate Court on this point is perverse and legally unsustainable. Question No. 2: It is well settled that it is the duty of the propounder of a Will to prove it and, remove all the suspicious features. A Will interferes with the natural line of succession. The Will must be proved in accordance with law as laid down in section 68 of the Evidence Act read with section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It is true that law does not emphasise that the witness must use the language of the sections to prove the requisite merits thereof but it is also not permissible to assume something which is required by law to be specifically proved Kashibai and Another Vs. Parwatibai and Others, . The onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a Will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last Will of a free and capable testator. In case the propounder takes the benefit under the Will, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite suspicion of the Court, and call upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument, in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true Will of the deceased Harmes vs. Hinkson, AIR 1946 PC 156 . It must be established that the testator was a person of testamentary capacity. The propounder must prove its due and valid execution. Merely because a Will is registered its genuineness cannot be presumed. Registration of a Will does not change the onus of proof from its propounder to the challenger. It must be established that the testator was a person of testamentary capacity. The propounder must prove its due and valid execution. Merely because a Will is registered its genuineness cannot be presumed. Registration of a Will does not change the onus of proof from its propounder to the challenger. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 that the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar does not satisfy the requirements of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and does not reach upto the level of proof required u/s 68 of the Evidence Act and hence mere registration of the Will is of no consequence. It is necessary that there should be proof that the attesting witnesses had "seen the executant sign or affix his mark". It is further necessary that the attesting witnesses must have signed as such "in the presence of the executant". In this case the judgment of the first Appellate Court shows that these ingredients for proof of the Will have not been kept in view. There is no discussion of the evidence on these crucial aspects. Banspatiram (D.W.3) and Satish Kumar (D.W. 5) are the two attesting witnesses to the Will dated 21-12-1979 (Ex. D-1). Banspatiram (D.W. 3) has deposed that Gopal Singh had come to the office of the Collector to execute the Will in favour of Mangleshwar Prasad. He told him that he has become physically weak. He got the document Ex. D-1 scribed and put his thumb mark thereon. He does not specifically say that he had seen Gopal Singh putting his thumb mark on this document. He has further stated that he had signed this document as a witness and one more person did so. Again he does not specifically says that he signed as attesting witness in the presence of Gopal Singh. This witness is a Pandit. He says that Gopal Singh was not married and he had no issue. On this point the testimony of this witness cannot be said to be true as the plaintiff No. 1 has been held to be the wife and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 as children of Gopal Singh. It is obvious that this witness is not impartial and independent. He is a witness interested in the defendant. He calls the plaintiff No. 1 as 'Kolin'. That shows his prejudice. 2 to 6 as children of Gopal Singh. It is obvious that this witness is not impartial and independent. He is a witness interested in the defendant. He calls the plaintiff No. 1 as 'Kolin'. That shows his prejudice. Satish Kumar (D.W. 5) has stated that Gopal Singh had come to the office of the Sub-Registrar. He has further said that he himself had signed on the Will Ex. D-1 and his signature is marked B to B. He does not say that Gopal Singh had put his thumb mark on this document much less he saw him putting his thumb-mark thereon. Gopal Singh told him that he is suffering from T.B. and as Mangaleshwar Singh is doing his service he has bequeathed his property to him. In cross-examination this witness says that he does not know that Brijbasua is wife of Gopal Singh and he cannot say whether plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are the children of Gopal Singh. This impresses the character of this witness as partisan. The two attesting witnesses do not speak of the testamentary capacity of Gopal Singh and whether he was executing the Will out of his own free Will. Mangleshwar Singh (P.W. 4) is the legatee under this Will. He has made a general statement that Gopal Singh had executed the Will in his favour. He does not tell why Gopal Singh was depriving the plaintiffs of their right. His four children at that time were minor. It is unreasonable to expect that their welfare was not a matter of concern to Gopal Singh. It is obvious that Gopal Singh was under pressure and undue influence of the legatee and his father. Gopal Singh died after two-three months of the Will Ex. D-1. The suspicious circumstances are not removed. It is writ large that defendant Vishnu Deo Singh and his son Mangleshwar prevailed upon Gopal Singh to see that his share does not pass on to his legal heirs and it remains in the joint family. The cancellation deed Ex. D-2 was also a part of the scheme to see that the share of Gopal Singh does not pass to his wife who was of inferior caste. That is borne out from the evidence of Ramjiawan (DW. 7) and Bisheshwar Prasad (D.W.8). Vishnu Deo Singh (D.W. 1) has stated that Gopal Singh executed the Will Ex. The cancellation deed Ex. D-2 was also a part of the scheme to see that the share of Gopal Singh does not pass to his wife who was of inferior caste. That is borne out from the evidence of Ramjiawan (DW. 7) and Bisheshwar Prasad (D.W.8). Vishnu Deo Singh (D.W. 1) has stated that Gopal Singh executed the Will Ex. D-1 but he also does not say it was done in his presence. From the evidence discussed above the Will Ex. D-1 is not proved to have been duly executed and attested as required by law. The testamentary capacity of Gopal Singh is not established. It is not shown that he did so voluntarily and with a conscious mind to exclude his own heirs. The defendant or his son cannot be said to have acquired title to the share of Gopal Singh on the basis of this Will. It does not displace the natural line of succession. This appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. It is made clear that the lands shall be partitioned and half share shall be allotted to the plaintiffs/appellants. Details of the lands be given in the decree. Final Result : Allowed