1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31 October 2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-son has been dismissed and a declaration sought for the plaintiff's father be declared as ‘dead’ was rejected.

2. Briefly, the reason given by the Trial Court was that no evidence was led on the memory loss of the father of the plaintiff. Also, no evidence was tendered to show that other than the plaintiff, there are no other legal heirs. However, the Trial Court accepted that the plaintiff has tendered the complaint made with the Police Authorities and certificate issued by the Police Authorities i.e., father was missing from 8 April 2003. The Trial Court also records that the plaintiff had filed ration card, birth certificate, passport, newspaper advertisement etc.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (original plaintiff) and the respondent (original defendant).

4. The short issue which arises for my consideration is whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to grant a declaration that Mr. Dogra Venkappa Survarna is presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years from 8 April 2003.

5. The plaintiff is the son of Mr. Dogra Survarna. In support of this, he has produced ration card, birth certificate and passport copy. None of these documents have been found to be incorrect or rebutted by the State- defendant.

6. From 8 April 2003, Mr. Dogra Survarna went missing while going for his medical check-up. The plaintiff filed a missing complaint with the Police Authorities and the Police Authorities have certified on 26 November 2011 that Mr. Dogra Survarna is still not found and is missing. These are the documents prepared and issued by the State Officers and therefore, same can be relied upon for the purpose of the present adjudication. This certificate certified that even after 7 years from the date of missing complaint, Mr. Dogra Survarna remained to be traced.

7. The plaintiff has issued newspaper publication indicating that Mr. Dogra Survarna is missing since April 2003 and any one providing any information of the said person would be rewarded. This advertisement was given in Marathi ‘Loksatta’ paper and Kannada paper. This also indicates the fact that from 2003, Mr. Dogra has gone missing.

8. The birth certificate is issued by the Government of Karnataka. Passport is issued by the Union of India and the ration card is issued by local authority of the State-defendant. Certainly these documents cannot be brushed aside. Merely because the plaintiff could not produce any medical records of his father after a period of more than 7 years to show memory loss of the father, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claim made by the plaintiff.

9. The circumstantial evidence leans in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant states that from April 2003, Mr. Dogra Survarna has not been found. The learned counsel for the appellant is justified in relying upon Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) which provides that if a person is not heard for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive then it is presumed that such a person is dead.

10. There is nothing on record which shows otherwise and, therefore, in my view, the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit.

11. In view of above, the impugned order dated 31 October 2015 is quashed and set aside and decree be drawn in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint which reads as under :-

                   “(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare and pronounce that Dogra Venkappa Survarna is presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years from 08.04.2003 or thereabout.”

12. Appeal is allowed in above terms.

13. Consequently, the interim application does not survive and is disposed of.