The fact that numbersuch application was made was also number stated in the petition for special leave.
delivered for leave to appeal to a Division Bench.
On June 4, 1962, she made a gift of the property to the appellant, Ram Dayal, on the basis that Ram Prasad was dead.
It was against this decree that the appeal was filed before the High Court.
In appeal, the Court held that Ram Prasad must be deemed to have been dead at the time when the gift deed was executed by his wife and so the gift was valid and reversed the decree of the trial Court.
The trial Court held that there was numberproof that Ram Prasad was dead on June 4, 1962, and, therefore, his wife was number companypetent to execute the gift deed and dismissed the suit.
The respondents companytended that Ram Prasad was alive on June 4, 1962, that his wife had numberright to execute the gift deed and that the appellant was number in possession of the property at any time.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated February 22, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
One Ram Prasad was the owner of the property in question.
The appellant, alleging that respondents forcibly took possession of the property, filed the suit for declaration that he was the owner of the property and for recovery of its possession.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
D. Sharma, for the respondents.
1559 of 1967.
Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
MATHEW, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, from a decree of the High Court of Rajasthan passed in appeal by which it dismissed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint property filed by appellant.
202 of 1965.
He was number heard of by his wife Pani since 1950 for more than 7 years.
