The presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act extends to the fact of death at the expiration of 7 years and not to the time of death at any particular period. There is no presumption that death took place at the end of 7 years or at any particular time within that period. The exact time of death is not a matter of presumption but of proof by evidence.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J. :- The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal against the decree of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Judges Court of Guntur in O. S. No. 118 of 1949.

2. The following pedigree would be useful in appreciating the contentions raised in the appeal :

3. Venkayya, Bapayya, Tirupatayya and Raghavayya are the sons of Narasayya. They effected a partition of the family properties in the year 1937. In that partition the property mentioned in the plaint schedule was allotted to the share of the third brother Tirupatayya. Ramayya, the 2nd defendant, is the natural son of the 1st defendant but was adopted by Venkayya, the eldest of the four brothers. The plaintiff is the son of the last of the brothers Raghavayya. On 17th of February, 1941, Tirupatayya executed a will (Exhibit B-1) giving his wife Tulasamma a life-interest in one acre of land and 30 square yards of site.

He gave the remaining properties and the vested remainder in the property to his wife, to his three brothers Venkayya, Bapayya and Raghavayya, to be enjoyed by them in equal shares with absolute rights subject to, the obligation of discharging his debts in equal shares. Disregarding the provisions of the will of her husband, Tulasamma instituted O. S. No. 206 of 1941, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Guntur, for maintenance against her husband.

That suit was compromised and a deed of compromise executed, by which it was provided that Tulasamma should be given nine ankems of paddy per year for her maintenance. It appears from the record that Tirupatayya died some time in October, 1942. Not content with the provisions made in the compromise decree in O. S. No. 206 of 1941, Tulasamma raised disputes with her husbands brothers at about the time of his death. These disputes were composed by the execution of a maintenance deed dated 23rd of November, 1942, by Venkayya, and Bapayya for himself and his minor sons in favour of Tulasamma. Raghavayya was not a party to this maintenance deed.

Venkayya and Bapayya obtained possession of all the properties bequeathed under the will of Tirupatayya after his death. It also appears from the record that Raghavayya disappeared and has not been heard of and his whereabouts not known since the year 1941. In 1947, Bapayya filed a petition under S. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act in which he prayed that he might be appointed as the person and property guardian of the son of Raghavayya, the plaintiff in the present action. On the 5th of February, 1948, Kameswaramma, the next friend of the plaintiff, caused a lawyers notice, Exhibit B-2 to be issued to defendants 1 and 2 alleging that they were unjustly in possession of the entire properties of Tirupatayya and declining to effect a partition of the third share of the minor plaintiff in spite of various demands.

On the 20th of September, 1948, the District Court, Guntur, passed an order in O. P. No. 2 of 1948, appointing Bapayya, the 1st defendant, as the guardian of the person of the plaintiff and appointing Kameshwaramma as the property guardian of the plaintiff and his sisters. Kameswaramma thereafter sought permission of the Court to institute a suit on behalf of the plaintiff for partition and recovery of separate possession of a third share of the properties of Tirupatayya as per his will.

Pursuant to the order dated the 26th November, 1948, permitting her to file a suit, Kameswaramma instituted the present action for recovery of a third share of the properties of Tirupatayya. Bapayya, brother of Raghavayya, was the 1st defendant in the suit and Ramayya, his natural son, who was adopted by Venkayya, was the 2nd defendant. Defendants 3 and 6 are in possession of item 8 of the plaint schedule properties and the 4th defendant is in possession of item 4 of the said schedule. They have been impleaded as persons claiming as alienees from defendants 1 and 2.

4. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 in a common written statement contended inter alia that Raghavayya, one of the