JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The only question on this appeal is whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the whole 4 annas 16 gundas share of the property in dispute. The answer depends upon whether or not he can show that at the date of the death of Puti Moni, when the succession opened out, his stepbrother Moni Mohan was dead. Moni Mohan has not been heard of for 7 years: he may therefore be presumed to be dead, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, under sec. 108 of the Evidence Act: but the law raises no presumption as to the time of his death: and it is therefore incumbent on the Plaintiff, who alleges that Moni Mohan was dead at the date of Puti Moni's death, to prove that fact by evidence. This he has failed to do, and the judgment, therefore, of the lower Appellate Court is correct. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Geidt, J. It is argued by the Appellant that as it has been shown that Moni Mohan had not been heard of for seven years before Puti Moni's death, a presumption arises under sec. 108 of the Evidence Act that at the time of Puti Moni's death Moni Mohan was dead. But it does not appear to me that sec. 108 has any such effect. The question for which provision is made in that section is the question whether a man is alive or dead, that is, whether he is alive or dead when the question is raised, not whether he was alive or dead at some antecedent date, and the presumption that may, in certain circumstances, be raised is a presumption that the man is dead when the question is raised, and not a presumption that he was dead at some antecedent date. If we were to accede to the Appellant's contention, we should be reading sec. If we were to accede to the Appellant's contention, we should be reading sec. 108 as though it ran, " when the question is whether a man was alive or dead on a certain date, and it is proved that he had not been heard of for seven years before that date by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive on that date, the burden of proving that he was alive on that date is shifted to the person who affirms it." Such a construction would be an extension of the scope of the section which is not warranted by its wording. I agree, therefore, that the appeal fails, and must be dismissed with costs.