ORDER

1. These appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the High Court dated March 19, 1974 in Second Appeal No. 370 of 1971 and the order dated March 18, 1976, rejecting the review application against the main order. The High Court allowed the defendants second appeal by the main order, after the defendant had failed in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court.

2. The suit property is a house in Faizabad. The defendant-respondent, now substituted by his LRs, was a tenant in the suit house when the house was purchased by the appellants on February 8, 1968 for a sum of Rs 3750, the sale deed being executed by Smt Chinta Devi, wife of Ram Shanker Lal, and their children, Lava Shanker and Smt Snail Bala. The house belonged originally to Ramjas Lal, father of Ram Shanker Lal who died in 1944. The whereabouts of Ram Shanker Lal were unknown and he was not heard by even his wife and children for a long time prior to execution of the sale deed in appellants favour on February 8, 1968. The exact date from which Ram Shanker Lal was not heard of or seen by any of his close relations is not clear. However, in the sale deed itself, it was mentioned by his wife and children that the said Ram Shanker Lal had not been heard of or seen by any one of them for more than seven years prior to the date of execution of that sale deed. It may also be mentioned that the statement of the defendant, Jagat Narain, forming part of the record, made before the Nazul Officer, Faizabad on July 8, 1958 contains his admission that his maternal uncle Ramjas Lal had died 15 years earlier and the whereabouts of his son, Ram Shanker Lal were not known from the lifetime of his father, and that Ram Shanker Lal had most probably died. This would indicate that even according to the defendants statement recorded in the year 1958, Ram Shanker Lal was presumed to have been dead at that time.

3. The appellant after purchasing the suit house in the above manner instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent also claiming therein arrears of rent in view of the fact that the defendant had admittedly not paid any rent to him. The defendant contested the suit on a vague plea. The defendant contended that a loan of Rs 1500 was taken by Ramjas Lal from him which he did not repay and after the death of Ramjas Lal, his son Ram Shanker Lal had agreed that in lieu of the loan the defendant could obtain a sale deed. The defendant further pleaded that to honour that statement, the defendant was also given possession. It is sufficient to say that the pleading of the defendant did not amount to setting up acquisition of title by him in any manner prescribed by law.

4. The trial court decreed the suit and the defendants first appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the second appeal by the defendant has been allowed by the High Court giving rise to the present appeals. The High Court has noticed the fact that even though the precise date of death of Ram Shanker Lal was not proved, yet the fact that he was not seen or heard of since 1944 was conceded by the defendant. However, after noticing this fact, the High Court proceeded to say that "Ram Shanker Lal can be presumed to be dead. There can be no presumption that Ram Shanker Lal died on February 7, 1968, with the result that his heirs and vendors could transfer valid title to the petitioner". It is difficult to appreciate much less accept this conclusion of the High Court which has been treated as an essential condition to uphold the validity of the sale made by the wife and children of Ram Shanker Lal in favour of the appellant. All that was necessary to be seen was whether Ram Shanker Lal was alive on the date of execution of the sale deed in 1968 so that in the absence of his joining in execution of the sale deed, the sale deed could be treated as ineffective to transfer his share in the ancestral property. From the conclusion reached by the High Court itself, Ram Shanker Lal had to be presumed to have d