Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 204
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
MR. VISHWESH DOGRA SUVARNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHEIF SECRETARY – Respondent
IA/3710/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. B. Adyanthaya, R. K. Shetty
For the Respondents: Shilpa G. Talhar
When a person is not heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have received communication, a legal presumption of death applies. Once this statutory requirement is sufficiently supported by credible evidence, the court shall issue a formal declaration of death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 111 - Presumption of death - Person missing for over seven years - If a person is not heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if the person had been alive, the presumption of death arises - The court must grant a declaration once the statutory threshold is satisfied - The trial court cannot impose arbitrary evidentiary requirements such as proof of medical conditions or mental health which are not mandated by the statutory provision to substantiate a claim of disappearance. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 10).
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a judicial declaration that an individual be presumed dead, having been missing since 8 April 2003. The plaintiff submitted multiple pieces of official documentation, including a police-certified missing person report, a passport, and birth records. The lower court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence regarding the missing person's health status and neglected to prove the absence of other potential legal heirs.
Findings of Court:
The documents provided, having been issued by state and national authorities, were found to be reliable and unrebutted. The court determined that the evidence sufficiently satisfied the requirements for the presumption of death under the applicable legal framework. The insistence of the trial court on extraneous evidence, such as medical records or specific health history, was held to be improper given the statutory criteria were met.
Issues: Whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the suit for a declaration of death when the statutory seven-year period of disappearance had elapsed and was supported by official documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal presumption of death applies when a person is not heard from for seven years by those who would naturally have received communication. Once this timeframe is established through competent documentation, the court is obligated to issue the declaration, as it is improper to require supplementary evidence not contemplated by the governing statute.
Result: Appeal allowed.
2026:BHC-AS:4470
ppn 1 1.fa-55.16(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH FIRST APPEAL NO.55 OF 2016
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.01.29 WITH
18:17:47 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3710 OF 2019
Vishwesh Dogra Suvarna )
Age 35 years, Indian Inhabitant )
Permanent residing of Flat No.D/20, )
4th Floor, Nancy Colony, )
Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066. )
Presently residing at Chaitaly PG )
Room No.10, Opp. Syndicate Bank, )
Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road, )
Bangalore – 560076. ) ….Appellant
(Orig. Plaintiff)
V/s.
State of Maharashtra )
through its Chief Secretary )
State of Maharashtra, )
General Administration Department )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ) .…Respondent
(Orig. Defendant)
----
Mr. K. B. Adyanthaya i/by Mr. R. K. Shetty for the Appellant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, AGP for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 29 January 2026
Judgment :
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31
October 2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-son has been dismissed
and a declaration sought for the plaintiff's father be declared as ‘dead’ was
rejected.
2. Briefly, the reason given by the Trial Court was that no evidence was
led on the memory loss of the father of the plaintiff. Also, no evidence was
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2026 07:38:41 :::
##PAGE2##ppn 2 1.fa-55.16(j).doc
tendered to show that other than the plaintiff, there are no other legal
heirs. However, the Trial Court accepted that the plaintiff has tendered the
complaint made with the Police Authorities and certificate issued by the
Police Authorities i.e., father was missing from 8 April 2003. The Trial
Court also records that the plaintiff had filed ration card, birth certificate,
passport, newspaper advertisement etc.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (original plaintiff)
and the respondent (original defendant).
4. The short issue which arises for my consideration is whether the Trial
Court was justified in refusing to grant a declaration that Mr. Dogra
Venkappa Survarna is presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years from 8
April 2003.
5. The plaintiff is the son of Mr. Dogra Survarna. In support of this, he
has produced ration card, birth certificate and passport copy. None of these
documents have been found to be incorrect or rebutted by the State-
defendant.
6. From 8 April 2003, Mr. Dogra Survarna went missing while going
for his medical check-up. The plaintiff filed a missing complaint with the
Police Authorities and the Police Authorities have certified on 26 November
2011 that Mr. Dogra Survarna is still not found and is missing. These are
the documents prepared and issued by the State Officers and therefore,
same can be relied upon for the purpose of the present adjudication. This
certificate certified that even after 7 years from the date of missing
complaint, Mr. Dogra Survarna remained to be traced.
7. The plaintiff has issued newspaper publication indicating that Mr.
Dogra Survarna is missing since April 2003 and any one providing any
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2026 07:38:41 :::
##PAGE3##ppn 3 1.fa-55.16(j).doc
information of the said person would be rewarded. This advertisement was
given in Marathi ‘Loksatta’ paper and Kannada paper. This also indicates the
fact that from 2003, Mr. Dogra has gone missing.
8. The birth certificate is issued by the Government of Karnataka.
Passport is issued by the Union of India and the ration card is issued by
local authority of the State-defendant. Certainly these documents cannot be
brushed aside. Merely because the plaintiff could not produce any medical
records of his father after a period of more than 7 years to show memory
loss of the father, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claim made by the
plaintiff.
9. The circumstantial evidence leans in favour of the plaintiff. Learned
counsel for the appellant states that from April 2003, Mr. Dogra Survarna
has not been found. The le
