Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
MHCC010098402019 Presented on 24.09.2019
Registered on 06.02.2020
Decided on 02.07.2025
Duration 05 Y : 04 M : 26 D
EXHIBIT-13.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
S.C. SUIT NO. 422 OF 2020
Mrs. Priya P. Shankarnarayanan,
Age : 53 years, Occ : Housewife,
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at : B/602, Silver
Birch, Vasant Garden, Mulund (W), Mumbai-
400 080.
]
]
]
]
] …..Plaintiff
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Government Pleader, City Civil Court
of Bombay, Mumbai.
2. Sr. Inspector of Police,
Mulund Police Station, Mumbai- 400 080.
]
]
]
]
]
]
Rider - I
...Defendants
Appearances :
Learned Adv. Archana Kamble for the plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Amit Kapse for defendants/State.
-- 1 of 7 --
2 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
CORAM : SHRI. ARVIND. M. BHANDARWAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 02nd JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02nd July, 2025)
1. The suit is instituted to draw presumption under section
108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking a declaration that her
husband Mr. P. Shankarnarayanan is missing and he be presumed to be
dead.
Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as under :
2. The plaintiff contends that her husband Mr. P.
Shankarnarayanan has been missing since November 2011, and despite
diligent efforts and registration of police complaints, his whereabouts
remain unknown. The plaintiff has tried at her level best to find out her
husband but since 2008 whereabouts are not known to the plaintiff and
her family members . The plaintiff claims legal interest in the property
purchased by her husband, a residential flat bearing number 1704 on
17th floor, in the building known as ‘Magestica’ having carpet area No.
566 Sq. ft. with Car parking space situated at Old Survey number 84
/1(P), and new survey number 161/1/B in the city and registration
district of Thane . It is pleaded that agreement to sale is registered in
the name of plaintiff and her missing husband. The copy of the
agreement is filed with the suit, and pleaded that her husband was
liquor addicted and missing since November 2011 . She has not lodged
-- 2 of 7 --
3 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
the complaint under the impression that he will return since the date of
his missing. It is pleaded that she or any of her relatives had not seen
her husband. In the society record flat stands in the joint name of
plaintiff and her husband. In order to claim the legal claim she is in
need of declaration as prayed for. Therefore instituted the present case
mentioning the cause of action accrued on 18th November 2011.
3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed to file written statement
and matter proceeded without Written Statement against them.
4. Heard both the sides.
5. The following points arise for my determination. The
findings along with their reasons are recorded hereinafter :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether a missing person, husband of plaintiff,
Mr. P. Shankarnarayanan has been unheard of
for a continuous period of seven years or more?
?
In the
Affirmative
2. Whether a case is made out to draw
presumption under section 108 of the Evidence
Act? ?
In the
Affirmative
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration
of civil death? ?
In the
Affirmative
4. What order and decree ? As per final
order
-- 3 of 7 --
4 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
REASONS
6. The plaintiff has relied upon the following documents in
support of the claim (List Exh. 08).
Exh.
Nos.
Documents
Exh.09 The original copy of Certificate of Registration of marriage.
Exh.10 The original copy of the Letter dated 30.06.2023 issued by GIC
Housing Finance Ltd.
The plaintiff filed pursis vide Exh.12 and closed the evidence.
As to Points Nos. 1 to 3 :-
7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has examined
herself at Exhibit 11 and reproduce the fact stated in the plaint. In
support, file three documents on record Exhibit 9 is the original copy of
marriage registration certificate, Exhibit 10 is the original copy of letter
received from GIC housing finance limited, addressing the plaintiff to
pay the loan amount The exhibit D is the photocopy of non cognizable
offense registered with Mulund Police Thane.
8. In a case where question arises whether a man is alive or
dead, in that case, it is necessary to prove that such person has not been
heard of for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him if
he had been alive. Therefore, it is the requirement under Section 108 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to show that person has not been heard for 7
or more than 7 years. The present case is instituted in the year 2020,
and it is alleged that from 18.11.2011, the husband of the plaintiff Mr.
P. Shankarnarayan is missing. To support the said fact of missing, the
plaintiff has examined herself and deposed that her husband is missing
-- 4 of 7 --
5 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
from 18.11.2011. She has further examined her brother, close relative,
Mr. Salil Balakrishnan Nair at Exhibit 11. He supports the case of the
plaintiff.
9. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act further
contemplates that the burden of proof that he is alive is on the person
who affirms it. The State has not filed written statement and not
brought on record that the missing person is alive. It is not the defence
through cross-examination. The plaintiff has claimed right over the
property mentioned in the plaint. This Court is not concerned with the
rights of the plaintiff in the property mentioned, however she has filed
the suit to get the declaration so as to enable her to take action in that
regard. This Court is of the view that plaintiff has brought on record
sufficient evidence to prove that for more than period of 7 years, the
plaintiff or her relatives have not heard about the missing person, Mr. P.
Shanakrnarayanan. Therefore, sufficient grounds are made out to draw
the presumptions under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. In
result, I answered point Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The S.C. Suit No. 422 of 2020 is stands decreed.
2. It is hereby declared that Mr. P. Shankarnarayanan shall be
presumed to be dead (Civil death) under the provisions of 108 of
Indian Evidence Act.
3. No any order as to costs.
4. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
-- 5 of 7 --
6 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
5. The Judgment is digitally signed; hence, it be uploaded on Case
Information System (CIS) and the printout of the digitally signed
Judgment, additionally signed by me be kept on record as the
physical record is maintained by the Court.
(Arvind. M. Bhandarwar)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 02.07.2025 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 02.07.2025
Transcribed on : 03.07.2025
Signed on : 04.07.2025
-- 6 of 7 --
7 Judgment in S.C. Suit No. 422-2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
04.07.2025 At 12.00 P.M. Mrs. Poonam Y. Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room Number)
HHJ SHRI. ARVIND. M.
BHANDARWAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
02.07.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 04.07.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 04.07.2025
-- 7 of 7 --