IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 17.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI S.A.No.132 of 2025

1. Rajathi

2. Sumathi

3. Anguraj ... Appellants vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its District Collector, Tiruppur District. 2. The Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk Office, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. ...Respondents Prayer :Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022 made in A.S.No.5 of 2023 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam, Tiruppur District confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21.02.2023 made in O.S.No.31 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Palladam.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Gunaseelan For Respondents : Mr.R.Siddharth Special Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal.

2. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.31 of 2022 to declare that the Samiappan son of Natarasan who found missing from 01.12.2000 as civil death and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Samiappan, son of Natarasan. The 1^st plaintiff is mother of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The 1^st plaintiff is said to be wife of Samiappan son of Natarasan, 2nd and 3^rd plaintiffs born to them. The case of the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of the said Samiappan. The 1^st plaintiff submitted that the said Samiappan was not well in the year 1999 onwards he is drunken and the plaintiffs have also provided medical assistance to him but due to his mental disorder condition, he was not recovered. Thereafter, the said Samiappan was missing on 01.12.2000 without any information to the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs took efforts to search the said Samiappan and whereabouts of Samiappan was not known to any one. Since the plaintiffs very poor family due to lack of knowledge, they unable to cause paper publication. So, the police also refused the complaint but they are advised to search him any of the hospital inspite of search, they are not able to found the said Samiappan, they are belongs to poor agriculture family having any sufficient knowledge. So, the elders of the family advised that the 3^rd plaintiff approached the 2^nd defendant for seeking death certificate of missing Samiappan as per law with the proper petition on 28.12.2021. Further, the 2^nd defendant also enquired in the village about the missing of said Samiappan and given a report that the said Samiappan was missing from 01.12.2001 and advised that the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court to workout their remedy. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. The said suit was filed against State Government i.e., The District Collector and Deputy Tahsildar, who are the defendants in the suit. Further, the respondents/ learned Government Pleader contested the case stating that the plaintiffs have not explained the proper reason and about delay of 21 years for filing the suit and not produced the ration card. Further, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the defendants/respondents submitted that the second/defendant enquired the matter and submitted a report that they are not competent authority to declare the samiappan was dead only the Civil Court to decide the issues.

4. Considering the evidence as well as the submissions on both sides, the trial Judge has concluded that if at all Samiappan was missing long back, the plaintiffs ought to have given a police complaint but they have not taken steps immediately to found out him as per the manner known to law nor approached the civil court. After 7 years from the date of missing besides there is no proper explanation submitted on the side of the plaintiffs. Though there is presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act , it is only rule of evidence but Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, alone is not sufficient to declare the said Samiappan as civil death. Accordingly, the suit was