JUDGMENT

Wazir Hasan, CJ and Smith, J - In this ca8e the plaintiff claimed the property of one liana Lal as his heir, It is stated in the plaint that Ram La] has not been heard of for the last seven years (vide para. 6). On this fact the lower appellate Court has founded the presumption that Ram Lal was dead on the date of the institution of the suit. It is argued on behalf of the defendants before us that there is no presumption in law that Ram Lal died on the date of the institution of this suit. In support of this contention reliance is placed upop the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Lal Chand Marwari v. Ramrup Gir A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 9. The lower appellate Court has, in deciding the point in favour of the plaintiff, referred to a decision of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahadeo Singh v. Har Buksh Dube.

We are of opinion that the proposition of law involved in the defendants' argument in this case is of sufficient importance to be decided by a Full Bench of the Court. Accordingly under Section 14(1), Oudh Courts Act, 1925, we refer the following proposition to the Pull Bench for decision:

Is there any presumption of law, in the oiroumstanoes of this case, that Ram Lal whose estate is in dispute, died on the date of the suit?

2. The question referred to the Full Bench for decision runs as follows:

Is there any presumption of law, in the circumstances of this case, that Ram Lal whose estate is in dispute, died on the date of the suit?

3. The facts of the case out of which this reference arises are briefly as follows: The plaintiff, Narain Singh, brought a suit for possession of certain plots and groves situate in village Dayalpur, parganna Nigohan, tahsil Mohanlalganj, in the District of Lucknow. He came to Court on the allegations that the property in suit was the joint family property of two brothers, Harpal Singh and Ram Lal, that Harpal Singh died on 29th March 1920, and made a will of half of the property in favour of his widow Mt. Ramkali, defendant 1, and also in favour of defendant 2, Bishunath Singh; that Ram Lal Singh had not been heard of for over seven years prior to the tiling of the suit, and that the plaintiff was his nearest reversioner and claimed the share of Ram Lal deceased, which was half of the property possessed by Harpal Singh aDd Ram Lal. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 have been impleaded as they are mortgagees and in possession of certain plots on behalf of Mt. Ramkali, defendant 1. The defendants admitted that Ram Lal had not been heard of for more than seven years but denied that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner of Ram Lal, and they further alleged that neither Ram Lal nor the plaintiff Narain Singh had been in possession within limitation, and that Harpal Singh, and after him defendants 1 to 5, had been in adverse possession of the property in suit for over 12 years. It was also stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the property in suit was the pint family property of Harpal Singh and Ram Lal, and that Ram Lal survived Harpal Singh and was in possession of half of the property, while the other half was in the possession of Mt. Ramkali, defendant 1. On the other hand it was stated on behalf of the defendants that the property in suit was the self.acquired property of Harpal Singh and Ram Lal, that Ram Lal disappeared during the lifetime of Harpal Singh, who remained in possession of the whole property in suit, and that at his death defendant 1, Mt. Ramkali succeeded to the whole of it as his widow. The issues framed in the case were as follows:

[1] Is the plaintiff the nearest reversioner of Ram Lal as allegod? 2. If so, have the defendants been in adverse possession of Ram Lai's share as alleged? 3. To what relief and against which of the defendants is the plaintiff entitled? 4. Was the property in suit the joint family property of Harpal Singh and Ram Lal as alleged? 5. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled as mesne profits?

4. The lea