JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant who is original-plaintiff, came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Suit No.385 of 2012 came to be confirmed.

2. The appellant is the original-plaintiff and the respondent is the original-defendant before the learned Trial Court. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this Judgment as per the status assigned to them before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that his son, Jitendrasingh Mansingh Devdhara was missing from Surat since 31.01.1984 and could not found till the date of filing of the suit. It is alleged that necessary janvajog entry dated 05.02.1984 came to be given by Takhatsingh M. Devdhara before the Rander Police Station and the public notice in daily newspaper regarding missing of Jitendrasingh was published on 07.02.1984. According to the plaintiff, since the date of missing of his son, he has not heard any news about his missing son and about his aliveness. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that his son has died and necessary entry to that effect may be made by the Surat, Nagarpalika in its record and for passing decree in his favour.

4. It appears that no written statement has been filed by the defendant in the Trial Court. The Trial Court has framed issues at Exh. 21 in vernacular language, which on translation would read as under :

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that his son Jitendrasingh Mansingh Devdhara is missing from 31.06.1984 and he could not be found?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

(iv) What order and decree?

5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the learned advocate for the parties, the learned Trial Court has answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in Affirmative and Issue No.3 in Negative and ultimately dismissed the suit only on the ground of delay, vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016. Against that judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.53 of 2018 before the District Court Surat, which has ultimately dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

6. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the both the Courts below have committed serious error of law in dismissing the suit only on the ground of limitation. It is contended that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case by adducing evidence to the effect that plaintiff's son after leaving from home on 31.01.1984 for the purpose of attending college, never returned. That the plaintiff has produced the evidence with regard to the information of missing report being given to the concerned police station and thereafter, taking follow-up action for the same.

6.1. It is also contended that Police Machinery has miserably failed to take appropriate steps and ultimately the plaintiff having lost a young son was left with no other option to approach the learned civil court seeking declaration with a view to see that no illegitimate claims are made relating to his properties after such a long time.

6.2. It is contended that the view taken by both the Courts below regarding limitation is wrong applicability of law of limitation. The Plaintiff has raised several questions of law in this appeal. However, this appeal has been admitted only on the following questions of law:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit only on the ground of limitation?"

7. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.M. Popat for the plaintiff-appellant and learned AGP Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja for the respondent-State. Perused the material placed on record and dec