Facts: The plaintiff, Vishwesh Dogra Suvarna, filed a suit seeking a declaration that his father, Dogra Venkappa Survarna, be declared dead. His father went missing on April 8, 2003, while going for a medical check-up. The plaintiff filed a missing complaint with the police, and despite newspaper advertisements and a police certificate confirming that Mr. Survarna remained untraced even after seven years, the Trial Court rejected the suit. The Trial Court reasoned that no evidence was led regarding the father's memory loss and that there was no proof of other legal heirs.
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff appealed the Trial Court's judgment and order dated October 31, 2015, which dismissed his suit seeking a declaration of his father's death. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Issue: Was the Trial Court justified in refusing to grant a declaration that Mr. Dogra Venkappa Survarna is presumed to be dead, considering he has been missing for over seven years since April 8, 2003, and the plaintiff has provided supporting documentation?
Holding: No, the Trial Court was not justified. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Trial Court's order, and decreed that Dogra Venkappa Survarna is presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years from April 8, 2003.
Reasoning: The High Court relied on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which states that if a person has not been heard from for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive, then there is a presumption that such a person is dead. The court noted that the plaintiff had filed a missing complaint, provided a police certificate confirming the father was untraced, and issued newspaper advertisements. The court stated, "This certificate certified that even after 7 years from the date of missing complaint, Mr. Dogra Survarna remained to be traced." The court also stated that the documents provided by the plaintiff, such as the birth certificate, passport, and ration card, could not be "brushed aside" and that the inability to produce medical records after seven years was not a valid ground to disbelieve the plaintiff's claim.