1. This is a suit for possession of a house site. The plaintiff stated in her plaint that the house was purchased by her elders, that her husband left the place and went away to foreign places, that she and her father-in-law lived in it subsequently for 5 or 6 years, that the father-in-law then died, that she then continued to live in the house for some time till it fell down, that she then went to live with her brother in another village and that when she returned to the village in 1908 she found that the defendants had trespassed on it.

2. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof of her title and possession. The case that the plaintiff attempted to make out at the hearing was that she succeeded to the house as the heir of her husband. No positive evidence was adduced to shew that her husband survived her father-in-law. She could not succeed unless the Court found that she did so. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the appellate court was bound to presume that her husband lived for a period of 7 years after he left the village and that as the father-in-law died before the expiration of the 7 years the husband must be taken to have survived him. Re