1. The appellants (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) contend that they are the representatives of Pamayan, who was a descendant of Veersawmy, and, in the even of his surviving Thangal, would have been one of Veerasami's reversioners and entitled as such to the property in question jointly with the defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
2. The appellants admit that Pamayan went abroad 15 years before suit and he must be presumed to be dead, but argue that the burden of proving the date of his death is upon the plaintiff.
3. The appellants' title, however, rests upon the proof of the fact that Pamayan survived Thangal, the last surviving female upon whose death all the defendants became entitled to the property, and it is clear from the case of In Re: Phene's Trusts L.R. 5 Ch. App. 139 22 L.T. 111, cited in Rango Balaji v. Mudiyeppa 23 B.K 296 that the burden of proving this fact lies upon the appellants See also Fani Bhushan Banerjee v. Surja Kant Roy Chowdhury 11 C.W.N. 883.
4. They have apparently made no attempt to discharge this burden and we are of opinion that the 1st respondent has, therefore, established his title to the property as assignee of the reversioners of Veerasawmy, defendants Nos. 3 and 4.
5. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs.