2021 Supreme(Ker) 409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
P. Vasantha – Petitioner
Versus
Southern Railway Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai – Respondent
O.P. (CAT) No. 210 of 2017
Decided On : 25-05-2021

Point of law : Service benefits of deceased - question as to whether the petitioners established the facts and circumstances to draw the presumption of death shall be an issue of fact in the trial- While exercising the writ jurisdiction the constitutional courts are never expected to undertake such arduous task of sifting of the evidence relating to the questions posed

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Disburse benefits due – Prayers in original petition are set aside Ext.P4 order as illegal, unjust and unreasonable – Direct respondents to disburse the benefits due to the petitioners, being the legal heirs of a deceased Sreedharan, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court – Issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case – Petitioners had filed O.A. with the prayers Direct respondents to disburse the benefits due to the applicants, being the legal heirs of a deceased Sreedharan, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court – Issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case

Finding of the court :

Statutory Tribunals are clothed with power of adjudication of disputed questions. – However the nature of such adjudication by those authorities is generally summary in nature and is circumscribed by the limit of statutory frame work for which those authorities are created by the statute concerned. – Civil Court on the other hand can decide factual questions as discussed above conclusively and such determination by those courts unless modified or nullified, would bind the parties finally. – Every provision in the Code of Civil Procedure is moulded in such a way as to make the determination of factual questions by the Civil Courts so elaborate and conclusive and not capable of being vexed again by any of the parties. – In the scheme of the Code such decisions impliedly carry even a declaration as to the legal character of the right or liability or the estate in question. – While exercising the writ jurisdiction the constitutional courts are never expected to undertake such arduous task of sifting of the evidence relating to the questions posed above – In a proceeding instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India this Court has intrinsic limitations in resolving the issues relevant in the facts and circumstance of this case – Court is of the view that this Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies under the civil law are available. – Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs in the original application. – Court hold that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires no interference at the hands of this court in exercise of the powers of the judicial review and superintendence. – Court make it clear that the petitioners will have the liberty to approach the proper forum as stated above. – Petitioners are at liberty to invoke the rule of “the presumption of death” in the manner known to law. – In fact, it is necessary on the ground of public policy, that rights depending on life or death of a person (Sreedharan in the instant case) who is allegedly absent from his usual place of residence without having been heard from for a period of 7 years, should not remain unaccounted for indefinitely but should be settled in accordance with law. – It is settled that the presumption of death is practically available for all legal purposes including proceedings relating to property. It is to be noted that the burden of proving the facts giving rise to the presumption lies on the party invoking the presumption. – Authorities referred to above suggest that the presumption, a rebuttable presumption of law that the person died sometime within the period of 7 years or more, must be applied with caution to prevent fraud and injustice. – Classic example is British India's most iconic litigation- the Bhowal Sanyasi's case in which the Sanyasi, who was presumed dead, instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he was the Kumar (Prince) of Bhowal. – Trial court declared that the plaintiff therein was Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy (The Sanyasi) and that he was alive. – Matter was brought up to the Privy Council which confirmed the findings of the trial court –

Result :Original Petition Dismissed