HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS defendants' second appeal raises an important question about the true scope of presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, and it arises out of the following circumstances:
(2.) RAM Prasad had a house in village Gulgaon where he also held certain agricultural land. He was not heard of by his wife Mst. Pani for more than seven, years and therefore she made a gift of the property of Ram Prasad in favour of plaintiff Ram Dayal on 4th June, 1962, assuming that Ram Prasad had died. The plaintiff contended that he came in possession of these properties after the same were gifted to him by Mst. Pani but on 20th July, 1962, the defendants-appellants mst. Narbada and Bhura-lal forcibly took possession of these properties and therefore a suit was filed by the plaintiff for the declaration that he was the real owner of the properties.
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit and pleaded that Ram Prasad was alive on the 4th June, 1962, when the gift deed was executed by Mst. Pani in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff had no right to file a suit. It is, however, admitted by both the parties that Ram Prasad had not been heard of for more than seven years.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.