Question

Legal Principle: In the law of evidence, a person missing for long and not heard of for over seven years is presumed to have died.
Facts:
A, B, and C are children of F and M. At age 20, A left in search of a job and had no contact with the family thereafter. All attempts to trace A failed.
Eight years after the death of their parents, B and C partitioned the property of F and M equally.
One year later, A returned with his wife and two children, claiming his share in the property.
Whether A’s claim is legally sustainable.

• A. Since A was not heard of for more than eight years, the legal presumption of death will apply and hence, he cannot claim a share in the property.
• B. It was A’s duty to be in touch with the family at least once in a year. The failure of this duty will disentitle him from claiming property.
• C. A will succeed because he is a legitimate son of F and M.
• D. B and C are legally bound to give \( \frac{1}{3}^{\text{rd}} \) share of the property to A.

Hint:

In property law, the presumption of death after 7 years ensures certainty in succession and prevents indefinite disputes over ownership.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Legal Principle
Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of them if they were alive, the law presumes that the person is dead.
This presumption allows legal heirs to proceed with succession and property distribution without indefinite delay.
Step 2: Applying the Facts
- A disappeared at age 20 and had no contact with the family.
- All reasonable attempts to find A failed.
- Over 8 years passed with no information about A.
- The parents died, and B and C divided the property equally.
- When A returned, the legal presumption of death had already taken effect, and the property had been partitioned.
Step 3: Evaluating the Options
- Option 1: Correct — The presumption of death applies after 7 years of absence, so A’s claim is extinguished.
- Option 2: Incorrect — The principle is based on legal presumption, not on a personal duty to remain in touch.
- Option 3: Incorrect — Being a legitimate child does not override the legal presumption of death.
- Option 4: Incorrect — The property was already lawfully divided; there is no obligation to re-distribute.
Step 4: Conclusion
Since A was legally presumed dead after being unheard of for more than 7 years, his property rights ceased to exist before his return. The claim is therefore not legally sustainable.
\[ \boxed{\text{A cannot claim a share in the property.}} \]