1. Yusuf and Arshad, two brothers, owned the property in equal shares at the time of partition which took place in the year 1947. Arshad continued to be in possession of the share of both till 1966 when he applied to the Revenue Authorities for sanctioning the mutation of the share of Yusuf in his favour on the ground that he (Yusuf) was not heard of for more than seven years and, therefore, he was his next heir. On 25th May, 1966, the mutation was rejected on the ground that may be Yusuf had died in India as suggested by Arshad or may have gone to Pakistan. After the mutation as rejected, Arshad filed the present suit for declaration that he was owner of the share of land once held by Yusuf as during the disturbances of 1947 he had gone to Delhi and died thereafter and since he was not heard of for a long time, therefore, he would be his next heir and that the revenue authorities were in error in rejecting the mutation. The Union of India, through the Custodian Department, was impleaded as defendant to oppose the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit on raising a presumption that Yusuf must have migrated to Pakistan due to communal disturbances as he must have thought t