1. This is a suit by a person alleging himself to be a reversioner for possession. The widow of the last male owner died in 1909. The suit was

instituted in 1912. The defendants among other pleas stated that one Guruviah alias Gurunadham, a nearer reversioner was alive when the widow died and that the plaintiff was excluded by him. In answer to this averment the plaintiff stated that Guruviah was not heard of for thirty years and that the presumption therefore was that he was dead in 1909.

2. The Courts below, in our opinion, rightly held that although Guruviah was not heard of for thirty years before suit, there was no presumption that he was dead in 1909. Mr. Rajagopalachariar who has argued this case with great insistence contested this proposition. He argued that the presumption must be raised with reference to the event which is the basis of the action and not with reference to the date of the suit. The language of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, in our opinion, does not support this contention. The word question in that section has reference to the point raised in the suit. The law of Evidence prescribes rules for the mode of proof in Courts, and it is with reference