JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.203-A/2014 whereby the plaintiff sought declaration of title over the entire property of Schedule “A” and 1/4th share in Schedule “B” & “C’ properties and further sought permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and selling the schedule ‘A’ property. The suit was dismissed. The appeal is by the plaintiff who claims to be legal representative of deceased to claim she had a share in scheduled properties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially a suit was filed by Smt. June Sharma claiming her right in schedule property described in the plaint that she is entitled to 1/4th share in it claiming wife of one late Anil Sharma. Smt. Sandhya Sharma who was shown to be second wife of Anil Sharma was arrayed as defendant no.1 and her daughters namely Smt. Jyotsna Vig, Ku. Neha Sharma & Sohel Sharma were also arrayed as defendants 2 to 4 respectively. During the pendency of suit, the original plaintiff Smt. June Sharma died on 14.01.2017. Thereafter, the present appellant Smt. Gloriya Mendis was arrayed as plaintiff, who claimed herself to have inherited the property by way of testamentary dispossession. 3. As per the plaint averments, Smt. June Sharma, the original plaintiff was married to late Anil Sharma some time in the year 1979. It was an inter-cast marriage and thereafter they were living together at a rented premises at Railway Colony, Bilaspur from 1980 to 2003. In the year 2003, a flat which is described in Schedule ‘A’ of Plaint was purchased by Anil Sharma. Thereafter, she was living along with Anil Sharma in the said premises. Before his death, Anil Sharma executed a Will dated 07.06.2008 whereby the flat was bequeathed in her favour by Anil Sharma. It is alleged that despite the marriage with June Sharma, Anil Sharma performed a second marriage with Smt. Sandhya Sharma who is arrayed as defendant no.1. Anil Sharma died on 17.01.2012. Before his death, Anil Sharma executed a Will dated 07.06.2008 whereby the flat was bequeathed in her favour by Anil Sharma. It is alleged that despite the marriage with June Sharma, Anil Sharma performed a second marriage with Smt. Sandhya Sharma who is arrayed as defendant no.1. Anil Sharma died on 17.01.2012. Thereafter, since the counter-claim was made-over the property by way of mutation, the dispute in between the parties came to fore and eventually a suit was filed by June Sharma claiming absolute share in the flat whereas 1/4th share in ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule property which was leftover by Anil Sharma. Accordingly, the prayer was made claiming absolute right over the flat and 1/4th right over the rest of the property on the ground that subsequent wife being second wife will not get any right over the property left over by Anil Sharma as the second marriage was nullity. 4. Defendant Smt. Sandhya Sharma who was said to be the second wife along with 3 children (defendants 2 to 4), denied the plaint allegations and averments. It was further stated that no marriage took place between Anil Sharma and Smt. June Sharma at any point of time. It was stated that June Sharma was residing in the capacity of tenant in the suit premises which was shown in Schedule A i.e., flat. In respect of properties described in B and C of plaint schedule, she being an outsider to the family will not get any right. 5. On the basis of pleading, the learned First Additional District Judge framed 7 issues and in respect of issue no.1 whether June Sharma was legally married wife, the finding was given in negative while on issue no.2 on execution of existence of will in favour of June Sharma by Anil Sharma, it was found to be not proved. Consequently Issue no.3 to 5 were decided against the plaintiff Smt. Gloria Mendis who was subsequently arrayed as legal heir of June Sharma and it was held that on the basis of the alleged will, neither she was entitled to any share in Schedule ‘A’ Property nor was entitled to the extent of 1/4th share in schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ property as prayed and the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the very fact of marriage and long co-habitation between Anil Sharma and late June Sharma has been established by evidence including the witness who was present during marriage. Referring to statement of P.W.1 Gloria Mendis followed by the evidence of P.W.4 Rajmuniram. He would submit that categorical statement was made that in 1979, the marriage was performed in a temple and thereafter they started living together for long time as tenant of P.W.4 occupying one premises. Consequently, it would lead to draw a presumption of husband and wife u/s 114 of Indian Evidence Act. He would submit that in absence of any other evidence, if a man and woman live together for a long time and husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. He placed reliance in Kattukandi Edathil Krishna Versus Kattukandi Edathil Valsan 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737 in support of his contention. He would submit that the attesting witnesses of the Will which was in favour of June Sharma could not be procured but the incidental circumstances of document which was placed before different Municipal and other Revenue Authorities would go to show that the will was acted upon and if the challenge is made to it, the burden of proof would shift to other party which the respondent has failed to discharge. Consequently the finding arrived at by the court below is required to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for the respondent would submit that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff would show that the fact of very marriage and its existence has not been proved. Referring to the statement of witnesses, he would submit that the plaintiff was actually known as June Franshaw and she was wife of Oscar Franshaw, which would be evident from death certificate (Ex.P-18) followed by the fact that June Sharma who claimed to be the wife never converted to Hinduism from Christianity. Therefore, no status can be acquired by late June Sharma through whom Gloria Mendis is claiming title on the basis of Will. He submits that only on presumption, the suit was filed to take over the entire property. As such the order passed by the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 8. Therefore, no status can be acquired by late June Sharma through whom Gloria Mendis is claiming title on the basis of Will. He submits that only on presumption, the suit was filed to take over the entire property. As such the order passed by the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the evidence and documents placed on record. In the instant appeal, one of the issue which arose for consideration is that whether or not plaintiff Gloria Mendis who claimed to have inherited the property by way of testamentary succession from original plaintiff Smt. June Sharma, proved the fact of marriage between Anil Sharma and June Sharma ? In order to ascertain the right which might have been accrued to Smt. June Sharma, the nucleus of title of June Sharma would be necessary to explore whether she had any legal right or has acquired such rights from Anil Sharma. 9. Plaintiff Gloria Mendis claimed that Smt. June Sharma was her aunt and Anil Sharma married her aunt June Sharma in Lakshmaneshwar Manidr, Sheori Narayan in the year 1979. The plaintiff in her cross-examination categorically admits the fact that June Franshaw was an Anglo Indian Christian and her last rituals were performed after her death at Prabhu Vatika as per Christian rituals and the prayers were made to pay homage in the name of June Franshaw wife of Oscar Franshaw. It is further stated that Oscar Franshaw is also not alive. She was unable to place the fact that whether any divorce took place between June Franshaw and Oscar Franshaw. Further she admits the fact that during the entire life time, June Sharma followed the Christian religion and used to go to Church for prayers every week. She further volunteered that Anil Sharma also used to go to Church. Admittedly, no document of any kind like ration-card or any other document to support the fact of marriage between June Sharma and Anil Sharma has been placed. The plaintiff on the other hand has filed a document Ex.P- 18 which is a death certificate of June Franshaw (June Sharma) wherein the name of her husband is shown as Oscar Franshaw. Admittedly, no document of any kind like ration-card or any other document to support the fact of marriage between June Sharma and Anil Sharma has been placed. The plaintiff on the other hand has filed a document Ex.P- 18 which is a death certificate of June Franshaw (June Sharma) wherein the name of her husband is shown as Oscar Franshaw. No plausible explanation has been given by the plaintiff to rebut such document as to how the name of husband of June Franshaw was shown as Oscar Franshaw instead of Anil Sharma. Neither bank account nor Aadhar Card / Ration Card were placed to substantiate the fact of marriage. Admittedly, as appears from her evidence she was not a witness to the marriage. 10. The witness to the marriage was produced as P.W.4. According to him, Anil Sharma and June Sharma resided together at his residence from 1988 to 2008 and the marriage was performed in 1979 at Lakshmneshwar Mandir, Kharod. In cross examination it shows that nowhere it is stated that whether June Sharma converted herself from Christianity to Hindu Religion. He was unable to depose the date of marriage but stated that he attended the marriage as a friend. Subsequently at para 10, he stated that after 1979, he has not met Anil Sharma and June Franshaw which is contradictory to the examination-in-chief wherein he stated that from 1988 to 2008 they were residing in his house. According to P.W.4 Raj Muniram, the marriage was performed in temple and he was conscious of the fact that such entries are made in the register for death. But except this oral evidence, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the same. 11. As per section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage can be solemnized between two Hindus under certain conditions. The section starts with words that valid marriage can be performed between only Hindus. As per the plaintiff, June Franshaw was Christian by birth and after her death, the rituals were performed according to Christian rituals and further prayers were made in the Church to pay homage in her name. She further stated that June Sharma (June Franshaw) during her life time was following the Christian rituals and used to go to Church every week. She further stated that June Sharma (June Franshaw) during her life time was following the Christian rituals and used to go to Church every week. So the statement of witnesses would show that by oral and documentary evidence till her death, June Franshaw never converted to Hinduism. 12. A dead adult Hindu is cremated. The soul is believed to be the immortal essence that is released at the Antyeshti ritual. The body and the Universe are vehicles and transitory in various schools of Hinduism. They consist of five elements: air, water, fire, earth and space. The last rite of passage returns the body to the five elements and origins. The roots of this belief are found in the Vedas, for example in the hymns of Rigveda in Section 10.16, as follows: “Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni : let not his body or his skin be scattered, O all possessing Fire, when thou hast matured him, then send him on his way unto the Fathers. When thou hast made him ready, all possessing Fire, then do thou give him over to the Fathers, When he attains unto the life that waits him, he shall become subject to the will of Gods. The Sun receive thine eye, the Wind thy Prana (life-principle, breathe); go, as thy merit is, to earth or heaven. Go, if it be thy lot, unto the waters; go make thine home in plants with all thy members. -Rigveda 10.16” 13. In order to prove that the parties have become ‘sufficiently Hinduised’ and/or ‘out and out Hinduised” it was necessary for the plaintiff to show that she has adopted Hindu religion and have been following all the rites and customs normally followed by Hindus. Had the parties been Hindus or had become sufficiently Hinduised, the dead body normally be cremated. Consequently, the co-habitation even if is admitted will not rectify the defect which goes to the root of relations to have a valid marriage. 14. To give a validity of the marriage, the requirement of mandate of Section 5 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 is to be followed. If under the facts and circumstances it is found that there is no conversion it would be difficult to hold it otherwise only on presumption. 15. 14. To give a validity of the marriage, the requirement of mandate of Section 5 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 is to be followed. If under the facts and circumstances it is found that there is no conversion it would be difficult to hold it otherwise only on presumption. 15. So far as the Will is concerned, no attesting witnesses have been examined, which is a requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and there is nothing on record to show that the attesting witnesses were not available. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed.