Point of Law - The principle enunciated in the provisions of the Evidence Act, the Specific Relief Act and the precedents relied on would make it clear that the judgment is one rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the pleadings of the parties on record. As such, the contention that the date of missing should be assumed as the date of death and a death certificate issued accordingly, cannot be accepted.

JUDGMENT :

1. The essential question raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the issuance of death certificates where a person is missing and has not been heard of for more than seven years.

2. W.P.(C) No.12086 of 2021 is filed seeking directions to the respondents to issue a death certificate in respect of Sri. K.T. Augustine to the petitioner, considering the date of death as 24.7.2003. Challenge is also raised as against Exhibit P9 reply of the 4th respondent informing the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner has been sent for clarification to the Chief Registrar. The 1st petitioner, who was the wife of Sri. K.T. Augustine, has passed away during the course of the writ petition and has been deleted from the party array. The 2nd petitioner is the son of Sri. K.T. Augustine. It is stated that Sri. K.T. Augustine is missing from 24.7.2003.

3. W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2021 is filed seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to issue death certificate to the petitioner in respect of his father Sri. P.I. George.

4. In both these writ petitions it is submitted that after the concerned persons had gone missing, FIR had been registered in the concerned police stations and efforts had been made to trace the missing persons, but to no avail.

5. I have heard Sri. Prasanth S and Sri. V. Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in these cases, Sri. K. Janardhana Shenoy and Sri. S. Harikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the concerned local authorities and Smt. Surya Binoy B., the learned Government Pleader.

6. In W.P.(C) No.12086 of 2021, when the amounts due under an insurance policy were not disbursed to the petitioners, they had filed W.P.(C) No.19824 of 2012 and this Court, by Exhibit P5 judgment, held that the presumption of death can safely be drawn under Section 108 of the Evidence Act and therefore directed the Insurance Company to pay the policy amount to the petitioners. By Exhibit P6 order, it was clarified that 24.7.2003 is to be presumed as the date of death. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P7 application for death certificate appending the judgment, which has not been considered by the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the clear findings in Exhibit P5 judgment of this Court, the respondents are duty bound to take note of Exhibit P7 application and to issue a death certificate showing the date of death as 24.7.2003.

7. In W.P.(C).No.4159 of 2021, the petitioner and his mother filed O.S.No.298 of 2014 before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur seeking a declaration that the petitioner's father is to be presumed dead and seeking partition of the properties belonging to him. The Munsiff Court, Chengannur by Exhibit P2 judgment and decree dated 28.5.2015 decreed the suit in part allowing the prayer of partition. However, the relief of declaration was declined. It is submitted that thereafter an application for death certificate was submitted, which has not been acted upon even in the light of Exhibit P2 judgment.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4159 of 2021 rely on the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Gangadharan [2020 (2) KLT 207] and Mariamma Samuel v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT 418]. It is contended that since competent courts of law have already held that the missing persons are no longer alive and have granted reliefs amounting to declaration, taking note of the fact of their death, the respondents are also duty bound to act upon the said declarations and to issue a death certificate in the light of such declaration.

9. A statement has been filed by respondents 1, 3 and 4 in W.P. (C).No. 12086 of 2021. It is contended therein that the finding in Exhibit P5 judgment does not bind the said respondents and that for the registration of death of a missing person, after 7 years, a specific direction of the court is required. It is contended by the