IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022/11TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 5567 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

SUHARA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, UPPUNGAL HOUSE, AKALAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR – 680 518.

BY ADV V.A.VINOD RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION BANK OF INDIA GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, SREE VIHAR BUILDING, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR – 680 101, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.N.H - 17, UNIT 3 OFFICE, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR – 680 664.

R1 BY SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC R2 BY SRI.APPU P.S., G.P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the

1^st respondent to return the original Settlement Deed No.618/1991 of SRO Andathode and Assignment Deed No.2763/2004 of SRO Andathode without insisting for First Information Report.

2. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of Abdul Latheef who left her company on 16.02.2006. After the said date, the whereabouts of the husband Abdul Latheef are not known.

3. The National Highways Authority proposed to widen a road near the property of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar with an application to get Legal Heirship Certificate/Family Relationship Certificate so as to claim the compensation. When the Legal Heirship Certificate was denied, the petitioner approached this Court. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Ext.P7 Relationship Certificate was issued by the Village Officer.

4. Along with Ext.P7 Relationship Certificate, the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent-Bank seeking release of title deeds deposited by the petitioner's husband. The Bank authorities required the petitioner to produce a copy of the First Information Report from the concerned authorities, Non traceability Certificate from the concerned Police authorities where the FIR was lodged after seven years, paper publication made in respect of the missing person, Affidavits, Application and Declaration in the Bank's format.

5. The petitioner has made paper publication as evidenced by Ext.P11, in the year 2013 itself. The petitioner is ready and willing to produce Affidavits, Applications and Declaration in the Bank's format. However, the petitioner is not in a position to produce the copy of the FIR at this distance of time. The production of Non-traceability certificate also is not possible immediately. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. The learned Standing Counsel controverted all the contentions of the petitioner, made in the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that as per rules and regulations of the Bank, if a person is missing and his legal heirs approach the Bank for monitory dues or title deeds, they have necessarily to produce either a copy of the FIR from the concerned Police Station or Non traceability Certificate from the concerned Police authority where the FIR is lodged. Without either of those documents, the Bank cannot return the title documents to the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing the 2^nd respondent.

8. This Court has occasion to consider a similar issue in WP(C) No.9657/2021. In the said judgment, this Court held that when a person has not been heard of for more than seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that the person is alive is on the person who affirms it. In other words, if a person has not been heard of for more than seven years by those who would have naturally heard of him if he had been alive, in the absence of any materials to show that he is alive, he can be presumed to have been dead. 9. In this case, it is to be noted that the petiti