Presumption of marriage from long cohabitation is rebuttable when surrounding evidence does not prove a lawful marriage.

Continuous cohabitation and public treatment as husband and wife may raise a rebuttable presumption of marriage, but that presumption is displaced by contrary circumstances and unreliable proof. The evidence of a formal marriage was found unconvincing, supported by the absence of reliable witnesses, the mother's contrary evidence, the contents of the will, and other facts inconsistent with the asserted relationship. On the totality of evidence, the claim that Ram Piari was the appellant's legally wedded wife was not established, and any succession claim based on spousal status therefore could not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved that Ram Piari was his legally wedded wife.

Analysis: Continuous cohabitation and treatment as husband and wife may raise a presumption of marriage, but that presumption is rebuttable. The evidence of formal marriage was found unconvincing, and the surrounding circumstances, including the absence of reliable supporting witnesses, the contrary evidence from Ram Piari's mother and will, the appellant's indifference towards Ram Piari and the child, and the unlikelihood of the asserted facts, were sufficient to displace the presumption.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that Ram Piari was his legally wedded wife.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation yields to contrary circumstances, and where the evidence as a whole does not satisfactorily prove a lawful marriage, the claim based on spousal succession must fail.

---