Denesan, J.

Widow and minor child of one Mr. Simon Joseph who was employed by the first defendant as a sea-man filed O.S.No: 68 of 1986 in the Sub Court, Kochi claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-from defendants 1 to 3 on the allegation that Simon Joseph was missing from vessel 'm.v. Sathya Kailash' owing to the wanton acts and gross negligence of the first Defendant and its employees.

2. The first defendant denied liability to pay the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs. In the written statement it is contended, inter alia, that the suit is barred by limitation.

3. The court below found merit in the contentions of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal.

4. According to the plaint averments, the fact that Simon Joseph was found missing from25.5.1974 was communicated by the first respondent to the fourth respondent- father of Simon Joseph- by letter dated 22.6.1974. This is the last information about Simon Joseph and since he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, he must be presumed to be dead. The unfortunate even happened due to the wanton acts and negligence of the first defendant and its employees and therefore they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs.

5.The plea of limitation raised by the first defendant arises out of the fact that the missing of Simon Joseph from 25.5.1974 was communicated by letter dated 22.6.1974 to his legal heir and father and the time for filing the suit shall run from that date. It is contended that a suit for compensation in order to be within the time prescribed under Art.72 of the Limitation Act ought to be filed within one year from the date of the cause of action, namely the missing of Simon Joseph allegedly due to the wanton acts of the first defendant. The plaintiffs filed the suit in 1982 only; far beyond the time prescribed therefore. First defendant contends that the suit cannot be salvaged under Art.82 of the Limitation Act as well. The period prescribed therein is two years from the date of death. No evidence is available to prove the date of the alleged death of Simon Joseph. Unless the date of death is known, it will not be possible to say when does the cause of action for the purpose of Art. 82 arise; and consequently the computation of the period under that Article also becomes impossible.

6. Dr. P.S. Krishna Pillai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since Simon Joseph has not been heard of for seven years form 1974 he should be presumed to have dead as per Sec.108 of the Evidence Act. According to the counsel, the cause of action has arisen immediately after the expiry of seven years from the date of missing, that means, the cause of action arose only in 1981 and hence the suit that was filed in 1982 is within the period of limitation.

7 . We are afraid, we cannot agree with the submission of the appellant's counsel. In our opinion, there is a fallacy in the argument advanced on the basis of Section 108 of the Evidence. The date of expiry of seven years mentioned in that Section cannot be understood as the date of death of the person who has not been heard of during the period of seven years. It is true that Section 108 enables the courts under the circumstances stated therein to draw the statutory presumption that a man is not alive unless the contrary is proved by the opposite party. But that does not mean that Section 108 can be called in aid to establish the exact date of death of the person. The date of death has to be proved in the same manner as any other fact is proved.

8. A Full Bench of this court in Appula Vadhyar v.Venketeswara Vadhayro (1970 KLT 976) after a detailed analysis of the relevant case law, both Indian and English, laid down the law thus: "The date of death has therefore to be proved as nay other fact by the person on whom the burden lies to establish the said death. The exact time of death is not a matte