The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of S. 107 and S. 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the time of death in cases where there is a dispute regarding the date of death of an individual.

1. Plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. The plaint schedule properties belong to the family of one Hari Vadyar. He died in Mithunam 1119 leaving a son, Rang Vadyar and two daughters, who are the first plaintiff and the first defendant. This Ranga Vadyar was alleged to have died on 15.6.1121 without leaving any wife or children. The first plaintiff and the first defendant had, therefore, inherited the rights of Ranga Vadyar over the plaint properties. The plaintiffs stated that, before the death of Hari Vadyar, he had executed some documents relating to the plaint properties. These documents were invalid, as he was not competent to dispose of the original family properties by such documents. Under these documents, the first defendant's husband, the 7th defendant, was constituted manager of the family. He had been directed to hand over the properties and money, if any collected, to Ranga Vadyar if he returned within one year after the death of Hari Vadyar. The 7th defendant was also the Mukthiyar-holder of the first defendant. He had filed suits O.S. 240,138 and 225 of 1120 and O.S. 355 of 1119 for arrears of rent as regards certain portions of the buildings in the plaint property occupied by the first and fourth plaintiffs. Decree were obtained thereon. The first plaintiff would state that she was in possession of a portion of the building in her own right with the consent of Hari Vadyar and that she was not liable to pay any rent. There was also a prayer in the plaint for an injunction to restrain the 7th defendant from executing the decrees and also from proceeding with the petitions filed by him before the Rent Controller for eviction. The plaint B schedule items are said to be moveables in the possession of the first defendant. The first plaintiff claimed also a half share in these properties. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded on the ground that they were reversioners. Defendants 1 to 6, by one written statement and the 7th defendant, by another, resisted the suit. According to defendants 1 to 6, Hari Vadyar got the paramba in plaint A schedule in partition in the family. It was a verumpattom land obtained from the Thirumala Devaswom; and Hari Vadyar had executed a pattom-chit in 1094. He had made improvements in the property with his own funds. He occupied a portion of the building and let out the remaining portion. The only son of Hari Vadyar was Rang Vadyar, and he had left this place long before Hari Vadyar's death, surrendering all his rights in the properties. He was not heard of for a very long time; and so his father and all his relatives were treating him as dead. Hari Vadyar had nobody to look after him in his old age except the first defendant and so he have away the plaint A schedule properties to the first defendant and her children, out of his own free will. Neither the plaintiffs nor any other person had any right over these properties. The allegations in para 3 of the plaint that the properties of Hari Vadyar devolved upon his son Rang Vadyar and that the plaintiff became entitled to a half share in the properties on the death of Ranga Vadyar were denied. The plaintiffs were put to proof of these allegations. The documents referred to in the plaint were executed by Hari Vadyar of his own free will. They are Exts I to III. He was also competent to do so as the sole surviving co-parcerner of a joint Hindi Mithakshara family. The plaintiffs were entitled to bring a suit for partition. There was also an alternative prayer that as Ranga Vadyar had pre-deceased Hari Vadyar it had to be taken that he lost all rights to the properties by abandonment, relinquishment and waiver. The decrees obtained by the 7th defendant against the plaintiffs were all valid and binding on them. They were passed after a keen contest. They, therefore, opposed the plaintiff's suit. The 7th defendant supported defendants 1 to 6. There was, however, a statement in para 2 of his written statement that all the allegations in