JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2013 whereby a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Raity/Rayati to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram. Being aggrieved by such order, the other legal heirs preferred this appeal. To appreciate the factual matrix and the issue involved in this case, we would like to reproduce here the genealogical tree of the parties as submitted before us. 2. Plaintiff Smt. Raity/Rayati wife of Sampat Ram filed a suit for declaration that she was born out of marriage of Raimani @ Raimati and Jhitkuram and is legitimate child. Raimati was married to Budhram and it was stated that out of marriage a son namely Sampat, son was born. After death of Budhram, the plaintiff pleaded that as per the caste-custom, Jhitkuram who was also a family member, by performance of Chudi custom accepted Raimati (widow of Budhram) as his wife and out that relation, Raity/Rayati the plaintiff was born. Jhitku Ram was arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the original suit and Raimani @ Raymati was arrayed as defendant no. 2. 3. In the written statement of Jhitku Ram, he denied to have married with Raymati as per the custom and also denied the paternity of Raity, the Ravindra (Appellant) Chamaru Lokhi Baishaku Dashrath (issueless) Sudharan Jhitakuram Defendant No. 1 Bhagirathi (Daughter) Bati Neela (Daughter) Hiram (Daughter) Budhsan Ramdas Bahadur Chandarsingh Wife Siyabai (died) Munju (Daughter) (Appellant) Budhram (died) Raimati (wife) Defendant No. 2 Sampat Sampati Raity (Plaintiff) plaintiff. The plaintiff examined herself and one Sampat Ram whereas during the life time of Jhitku Ram, he could not adduce any evidence and eventually the right to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court on 05.12.2015. Thereafter, Jhitku Ram died on 22.07.2016 which is reflected by the order dated 11.05.2017. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed wherein the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant. The order sheet of the Court below would show that subsequently no application was filed to reopen the evidence and thereafter the case was decided on merits. 4. Thereafter, Jhitku Ram died on 22.07.2016 which is reflected by the order dated 11.05.2017. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed wherein the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant. The order sheet of the Court below would show that subsequently no application was filed to reopen the evidence and thereafter the case was decided on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the factum of marriage has not been proved and the custom of “Chudi” and the rituals have also not been proved, consequently it will lead to substantiate that no marriage took place. He would submit that Jhitku Ram was married to Siya Bai and out of such marriage Ravindranath and Manju @ Manjulata were born who are appellants herein. He submits that Raimati was married to Budhram and after death of Budhram, Raimati was not married to Jhitku Ram but the paternity is claimed by Raity without any evidence. Learned Counsel further submits that in such instances in absence of any evidence, the declaration of paternity and legitimacy cannot be attached to respondent No. 1 Raity and the judgment and decree calls for intervention. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the contenting defendant mainly Jhitkuram, whereas defendant no. 2, the mother Raimani @ Raimati had accepted the plaint averments. He would submit that the submissions were further followed by the supportive documentary evidence i.e., the school marks-sheet register and transfer certificate wherein the name of father of plaintiff recorded was shown as Jhitku Ram. He further submits that those documents will have a presumptive value of correctness and in absence of evidence in rebuttal, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contest was in between the original plaintiff Raity respondent no. 1 in appeal) and Jhitku Ram defendant no. 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram and Raimati (respondent no. 2) and it was stated that after death of Budh Ram the first husband of Raimati, she was married to Jhitkuram as per the caste custom of “Chudi.” The evidence of plaintiff would claim that she was born on 2nd June, 1954. 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram and Raimati (respondent no. 2) and it was stated that after death of Budh Ram the first husband of Raimati, she was married to Jhitkuram as per the caste custom of “Chudi.” The evidence of plaintiff would claim that she was born on 2nd June, 1954. In order to support the same, Document Ex.P-10 is placed on record, which appears to be the Birth Register which shows that on 2nd June, 1954, Raity was born and the father’s name is shown as Jhitku Ram Kalar. The plaintiff claimed to have studied upto Class VIII and the School Transfer Certificate of 1968 is marked as Ex.P.5(C) wherein the name of Jhitku Ram is shown as father of Ku. Raity Bai, Jhitku Ram is shown. Likewise in the marks sheet issued by Middle School in 1968, Ex.P-6(c) as against the name of Raiti Sethiya, father is shown as Jhitku Ram Sethiya. In the election register of 1971 which is marked as Ex.P-9 Raimati (defendant no. 2) is shown as mother and Jhitkuram is shown as father. A perusal of statement of Smt. Raimati (DW-1) shows that she was married to Jhitku Ram in the year 1950 and according to the rituals of Chudi, her marriage was performed and at the time of marriage of daughter Raity (the plaintiff), rituals of Kanyadan was made by Jhitku Ram. She further states in cross examination that the plaintiff Raity was born to her out of relations with Jhitku Ram and since only one baby girl was born to them, Jhitku Ram had kept another woman as concubine and out of that relation two children were born, who are the appellants herein. In absence of any evidence on record in rebuttal, when defendant no. 2 Raimati has stated that the marriage was performed by Chudi custom and they were living together for long, the presumption would be relationship of the marriage. 7. In Mohabhat Ali Khan vs. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135 and also in Andrahennedige Dinohanmy vs. W.L. Blahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185 the principle was laid down that when two persons lived together and cohabited as man and wife, the law will presume, unless contrary is proved that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in state of concubinage. The Court further held that such presumption could be drawn u/s 114 of the Evidence Act that when the parties have lived together as husband and wife for long the presumption in favour of wedlock will follow. This proposition was further affirmed in Dhannulal vs. Ganesh Ram, (2015) 12 SCC 301 . Further the statement of Raimati who was examined on Commission maintained a firm stand that she was living with Jhitku Ram and during his life time, no dispute arose. She was examined at the age of 84 years before the Commission where the interse relation was divulged. When during life time Jhitku Ram did not adduce any evidence to rebut the same and only statement was given by the mother Raimati about the relation that information of relationship would be valid u/s 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which purports 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 or any person who as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the particular subject is a relevant fact. 8. The statement of Raimati remains un-rebutted with respect to cohabitation with Jhitku Ram and birth of Raity in the year 1954. The statements of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 when are combined with the other circumstances i.e., name recorded in the mark-sheet and transfer certificate of School which are of 1968 and 1971 the documents having been produced vide Ex.P-5 (c) and P-6(c) from the lawful custody and being 30 years old, the presumption can be safely drawn in terms of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, about its execution and perusal on the face of it is free from suspicion. There is no evidence in rebuttal that the contents were not proved or were not correctly recorded, as a result there is no insurmountable obstacle firstly to draw the presumption of marriage followed by legitimacy of children. As per the statement of mother, Raimati Bai, defendant no. 2 no obstruction was ever made till the last breath of of Jhitku Ram. The order sheets would display that Jhitku Ram died on 27.10.2016. The status of plaintiff, therefore, would further be protected under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act which contains legal fiction. As per the statement of mother, Raimati Bai, defendant no. 2 no obstruction was ever made till the last breath of of Jhitku Ram. The order sheets would display that Jhitku Ram died on 27.10.2016. The status of plaintiff, therefore, would further be protected under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act which contains legal fiction. It is by rule of fictio juris the legislature has provided that children, though illegitimate, shall nevertheless, be treated as legitimate notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable. 9. Reading the evidence collectively along with the documents produced, the irresistible conclusion points out that the plaintiff was able to prove the paternity and legitimacy without any iota of doubt. Therefore, we are of the considered view that judgment and decree passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference. In the result, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed. A decree be drawn accordingly.