JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal, appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2009. The respondents/cross-objectors have also assailed the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Cross-objections No. 266 of 2011. Whereas, the appellant/plaintiffs are aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree, in so far it affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi dated 8.7.2009 in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2005, the Cross-objectors have assailed the dismissal of their cross-objections by the learned Lower Appellate Court. 2. Regular Second Appeal No. 558 of 2010 and Cross-Objections No. 266 of 2011 are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved. 3. Appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents/cross-objectors were defendants in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2005 before learned trial court. In order to avoid confusion, the parties hereto, shall be referred by the status, as they held before the learned trial Court. 4. Plaintiffs on 6.5.2005 instituted a suit claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the submissions made above, the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed with the relief that the plaintiffs may kindly be declared the legal representatives of late Sh. Munshi Ram with the defendants and the defendants may be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from selling/transferring the property of plaintiffs inherited from late Sh. Munshi Ram in any manner, the defendants may also be restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner, and or any other relief to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and justice be done.” 5. Plaintiffs filed the suit on the premise they were born from the loins of Munshi Ram out of his wedlock with their mother Kamlesh Thakur. As per plaintiffs, Kamlesh Thakur was the second wife of Munshi Ram. After the death of Munshi Ram, his estate/ancestral property was recorded, in revenue records, to have fallen to the shares of defendants on the basis of Mutation No. 188 dated 14.8.1996. As per plaintiffs, Kamlesh Thakur was the second wife of Munshi Ram. After the death of Munshi Ram, his estate/ancestral property was recorded, in revenue records, to have fallen to the shares of defendants on the basis of Mutation No. 188 dated 14.8.1996. Plaintiffs thus claimed right in the estate of Munshi Ram and prayed for the reliefs, as noticed above. 6. The defendants in their written statement filed before the learned trial Court specifically denied the status of Kamlesh Thakur as wife of Munshi Ram. It was alleged that she might be a concubine of Munshi Ram but had never entered into a lawful wedlock. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of late Munshi Ram and defendant No. 1 is the widow of late Munshi Ram as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Kamlesh Thakur was the second wife of late Munshi Ram and out of the wedlock of Sh. Munshi Ram and Smt. Kamlesh Thakur the plaintiffs have born? OPP 3. Whether the defendants in collusion with the revenue staff got attested the mutation of inheritance of the estate/ancestral land of late Sh. Munshi Ram only in the names of defendants as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 7. Relief.” 8. Plaintiffs examined as many as 7 witnesses to support their claim. Kamlesh Thakur appeared as PW-3 and deposed that she was married to Munshi Ram on 10.10.1972 in Kali Bari Temple in a simple manner by accepting garlands. She further stated that thereafter she and Munshi Ram resided together under one roof in Shimla till Munshi Ram breathed his last and during this period plaintiffs were born from the loins of Munshi Ram. At the time of solemnization of marriage with Munshi Ram, she was not aware that Munshi Ram was already married and she had came to know about this fact after about 4-5 years after her marriage with Munshi Ram. At the time of solemnization of marriage with Munshi Ram, she was not aware that Munshi Ram was already married and she had came to know about this fact after about 4-5 years after her marriage with Munshi Ram. She further narrated that the defendants were also aware about her as well as plaintiffs’ relationship with Munshi Ram. She claimed rights of the plaintiffs in the property left behind by Munshi Ram. She specifically admitted the property left behind by Munshi Ram to be ancestral. The version of PW-3 Kamlesh Thakur to the effect that she resided with Munshi Ram at Shimla under one roof for long period of time was corroborated by PW-4 Ramesh Chauhan, PW-6 Manveer Singh and PW-7 Santokh Singh Thakur. As further support to above stated fact, the plaintiffs had relied upon the records from the office of employer of Munshi Ram, regarding their travel with Kamlesh Thakur and Munshi Ram to Goa in the year 1995, on the basis of declaration made by Munshi Ram to the effect that Kamlesh Thakur was his wife and plaintiffs were his children. This fact has been proved by PW-2 Desh Raj. Plaintiff No. 1 (now deceased) Deepak Kumar appeared as PW-4 and also reiterated the facts, supporting the claim of the plaintiffs. As against the evidence led by the plaintiffs, the defendants examined only Duni Chand, defendant No. 2, as DW-1. He denied having any acquaintance and relationship with plaintiffs. He has asserted that they had ancestral property on which plaintiffs have no rights. 9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence held that Munshi Ram was proved to have resided with Kamlesh Thakur at Shimla under one roof for long period of time and hence presumed to have married, though the marriage was void under Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act on account of earlier subsisting marriage of Munshi Ram with defendant No. 1. Thus, plaintiffs were held to be the legitimate children of Munshi Ram by virtue of provisions of Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act. However, plaintiffs were held not entitled to the immovable property left behind by Munshi Ram for the reason that section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act did not postulate grant of right to children legitimised under said section to inherit ancestral/ Joint Hindu Family property of their parents. However, plaintiffs were held not entitled to the immovable property left behind by Munshi Ram for the reason that section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act did not postulate grant of right to children legitimised under said section to inherit ancestral/ Joint Hindu Family property of their parents. Relying upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jinia Keotin and Others vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 730 , the plaintiffs were held not entitled to the ancestral property left behind by Munshi Ram. 10. Aggrieved against the dismissal of suit, plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2009 before the learned Lower Appellate Court. The defendants also preferred Cross-Objections in the aforesaid appeal assailing the findings regarding status of Kamlesh Thakur and Munshi Ram being wife and husband. Learned Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs as well as Cross-Objections filed by the defendants. The findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court were affirmed. Resultantly, present appeal and Cross-Objections. 11. The appeal stands admitted by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2010, on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Ld. Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit without giving any specific finding to the effect that the plaintiffs/appellants could have legally laid their claim with respect to ancestral property after the death of their deceased father late Shri Munshi Ram?” The Cross-Objections No. 266 of 2011 were admitted by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2011, on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the evidence for which foundation in the pleadings has not been made, can be looked into by the Court? 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs more particularly in view of the decree sought therein was itself maintainable? 3. Whether in the absence of pleadings regarding the time, date and place of the alleged marriage between late Shri Munshi Ram and Smt. Kamlesh Thakur, the learned courts below could have held their relationship to be a husband and second wife could have been proved on record?” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire records carefully. 13. The status of the immovable property held by Munshi Ram is admitted to be ancestral by plaintiffs themselves. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire records carefully. 13. The status of the immovable property held by Munshi Ram is admitted to be ancestral by plaintiffs themselves. That being so, the question arises whether the learned courts below have rightfully declined the right of inheritance in favour of plaintiffs by applying law laid down in Jinia Keotin and others vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others, (2003) 1 SCC 730 ? 14. So far as legal position is concerned, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jinia Keotin and Others vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 730 , has been subsequently followed consistently in Smt. Sarojamma and Others vs. Smt. Neelamma and Others, 2006 (9) SCC 612 and Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Others, 2010 (11) SCC 483 . However, in two Judges Bench of Supreme Court differed from the earlier view and subscribed to the view that the children once declared legitimate by virtue of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act were entitled to inherit the property of their parents, be it self-acquired or ancestral/Hindu undivided/Hindu joint family property and the matter was thus ordered to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench. As per available records, though the larger Bench stood constituted but the referred question is still pending adjudication before such bench. In this view of the matter, the law as laid down in Jinia Keotin, Sarojamma and Bharatha Matha (supra) is to be followed as the binding precedent. 15. The preposition that until the larger Bench answer the question referred to it, the earlier consistent view is to be followed as precedent cannot be disputed and the pending matters have to be decided on such binding precedent. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 16 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observes thus: “It is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that the said undertaking was being run by the irrigation department of the first appellant, and the activities of the irrigation department could not be considered to be an “industry” within the definition of the concept under Section 2(j) of the ID Act. As noted earlier, the reconsideration of the wide interpretation of the concept of “industry” in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board is pending before a larger Bench of this Court. However, as of now we will have to follow the interpretation of law presently holding the field as per the approach taken by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Dandasi Sahu, referred to above. The determination of the present pending industrial dispute cannot be kept undecided until the judgment of the larger Bench is received.” 16. In view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court so far as the plaintiffs were held not entitled to inherit the ancestral property of Munshi Ram. Substantial Question of law framed in RSA No. 558 of 2010 is answered accordingly. 17. As regards the finding as to existence of relationship of husband and wife as married persons interse Kamlesh Thakur and Munshi Ram, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below cannot be faulted, firstly for the reasons that the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence and secondly on account of the settled legal position as to presumption of marriage from a long standing relationship between a male and a female. In the instant case, the fact that Kamlesh Thakur and Munshi Ram resided under one roof for a long period of time and plaintiffs were born out of the said relationship has conclusively been proved by way of cogent evidence. Reference can be made to following excerpts from judgment passed by Supreme Court in Dhannulal and Others vs. Ganeshram and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 13. In the case of A. Dinohamy vs. W.L. Balahamy, 1927 AIR (PC) 185 it was held that where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage. The Court observed as follows: The parties lived together for twenty years in the same house, and eight children were born to them. The Court observed as follows: The parties lived together for twenty years in the same house, and eight children were born to them. The husband during his life recognized, by affectionate provisions, his wife, and children, The evidence' of the Registrar of the District shows that for a long course of years the parties were recognized as married citizens, and even the family functions and ceremonies, such as, in particular, the reception of the relations and other guests in the family house by Don Andris and Balahamy as host and hostess-all such functions were conducted on the footing alone that they were man and wife. No evidence whatsoever is afforded of repudiation of this relation by husband or wife or anybody: (14) In the case of Gokal Chand vs. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231 , this Court observed that continuous cohabitation of woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. (15) It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. A heavy burden lies on a party, who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. In the instant case, instead of adducing unimpeachable evidence by the plaintiff, a plea was taken that the defendant has failed to prove the fact that Phoolbasa Bai was the legally married wife of Chhatrapati. The High Court, therefore, came to a correct conclusion by recording a finding that Phoolbasa Bai was the legally married wife of Chhatrapati. 18. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court thus needs no interference. The presumption of marriage between Munshi Ram and Kamlesh Thakur has not been rebutted. The question as to right, if any, of plaintiffs to inherit immovable property of Munshi Ram was an inherent declaration required in view of the right claimed by plaintiffs to seek injunction on such properties of Munshi Ram. The substantial questions of law framed in Cross-Objections No. 266 of 2011 are answered accordingly. 19. The question as to right, if any, of plaintiffs to inherit immovable property of Munshi Ram was an inherent declaration required in view of the right claimed by plaintiffs to seek injunction on such properties of Munshi Ram. The substantial questions of law framed in Cross-Objections No. 266 of 2011 are answered accordingly. 19. In view of above discussion, the appeal as well as the Cross-Objections are dismissed with no orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records of the learned courts below be returned forthwith.