IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

SECOND APPEAL No. 967 of 2025 VARSHA VERMA VIDHYARTHI

Versus

PUBLIC AT LARGE/ SARV SADHARAN

Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Soni - Advocate for the appellant.

Reserved on : 18.11.2025 Pronounced on : 12.01.2026

ORDER

Looking to the nature of this appeal as it is against the General Public

and with the consent of the appellant's counsel, it is heard on merits and

decided finally.

2 . This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code

(for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 passed by the

th

XII Additional District Judge, District Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20/2025 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024 passed by

nd

II Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore in Civil Suit No.198-A/2023 (Smt. Varsha Verma/Vidhyarthi Vs. Public at Large) whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for death declaration of her son

Lohit.

3. The crux of the matter is that the appellant had instituted the suit for declaration of civil death of her son Lohit under the provisions of Order VII Rule 1 of CPC. It was pleaded that the appellant was married to Surendra Vidyarthi on 22.06.1978 in Indore. Out of this wedlock, the appellant had two daughters namely Shubhangi (date of birth 22.04.1976), Lavina (Date of Birth is 03.05.1981) and a son Lohit (Date of Birth is 02.10.1985). Further, a flat No. 201 Shiv Sampada Apartment N 47 Anup Nagar, Indore was purchased by the appellant from earlier owner Mrs. Meeta Menda W/o Ashok Menda, R/o N.-47, Anup Nagar, Indore through a registered sale deed dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure-C/1). The above mentioned flat No. 201, Shiv Sampada Apartment, N.47 Anup Nagar Indore is the subject matter of the suit, (hereinafter referred as to "suit flat"). To purchase the said property, the appellant had also taken a loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited in the name of herself and her son Lohit. The said loan has been repaid by the appellant.

4. It was also pleaded in the suit that appellant's son Lohit left home in the year 2014 after being unmarried and involved in a love affair. Despite searching for him by the appellant and his family member, Lohit could not be traced. Meanwhile, in the month of June 2016, some people came to the plaintiff's residence and told her that his son has left with a muslim lady. Due to which, those people harassing and threatening the appellant in various ways. The appellant made a missing report with the police authorities on

20.06.2016, but there is no trace of son Lohit since 2016.

5 . According to the plaint, eight years have passed since Lohit left home and still no information has been received about Lohit. The appellant has reasonable apprehension that some incident or accident has happened due to the love affair of her son Lohit with a Muslim girl or perhaps he is not alive.

6. In the area where suit flat is situated, gradually houses have been built by the people of Muslim community. The appellant has started feeling insecure in coming and going to suit flat with her young daughters and old husband. It has become very difficult for the appellant to live in suit flat. In these circumstances, the appellant wants to sell the suit flat but since the suit flat is in the joint name of the appellant and her son Lohit, the appellant is not able to sell the suit flat.

7. It was also pleaded that the financial strength of the appellant and her family is not very good. The appellant wants to sell the said flat to purchase property at some other place by selling the suit flat. The appellant's son Lohit has been missing for the last 8 years. Therefore, there is no information and possibility of his survival. In such a situation, due to lack of information about the appellant's son for a long time, after all possible efforts, the appellant's family has also accepted that the appellant's son Lohit has died, hence, the