Key Points: - The judgment explains that Section 108 is a proviso to Section 107 and creates a rebuttable presumption of death when a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally know, shifting the burden to the party claiming the person is alive. [13000282940011][13000282940018] - It clarifies that Section 107 places the burden of proving death on the party asserting it when the person was known to be alive within thirty years; Section 108 can shift the burden back to the claimant if seven years of non-hearing are established. [13000282940011][13000282940012] - The presumption under Section 108 is limited to death; it does not specify a date/time of death and must be supported by evidence; seven-year absence is a condition for the presumption to arise, not a fixed date of death. [13000282940015][13000282940016] - The court emphasizes that presumption of death requires evidence of efforts to trace the person; absence of police missing reports or public notices does not automatically negate the presumption, but reasonable efforts must be shown. (!) (!) [13000282940023] - The case holds that Arvindbhai Balkrishna Dhruv is presumed dead, and the suit for declaration of death and related relief is decreed; the decision relies on seven-year non-appearance and circumstantial evidence of lack of contact. [13000282940025][13000282940026] - The judgment cites accompanying jurisprudence and authorities on the alignment of Indian and English presumptions of life and death, including references to how seven-year absence interacts with proof standards. [13000282940012][13000282940014] (!)

What is the application and effect of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act in presuming death after seven years of non-availability?

What is the burden of proof on the party alleging death versus alive status under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, and what constitutes reasonable efforts to trace a missing person?

What factors justify declaring a missing person presumed dead in a civil suit seeking succession or property rights, and what is the correct scope of evidentiary requirements (including absence of FIR or public notice) to support such presumption?