In a recent case, Raeesa Bano v. Smt. Tabassum Jahan and Ors, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of filing a suit for the declaration of civil death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff, Raeesa Bano sought such a declaration for her missing husband who had been absent for over 13 years. Despite no contest from the respondents, the Civil Court dismissed the suit citing Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, the High Court clarified that Section 34 does not prohibit suits solely seeking a declaration of civil death. It emphasized the importance of such a declaration especially in cases involving accruing benefits to the legal heirs. Therefore, the Court remanded the matter for reconsideration affirming the permissibility of suits for civil death declarations.
CASE DETAILS:
Raeesa Bano v. Smt. Tabassum Jahan and Ors.
Second Appeal No. – 428 of 2016
Allahabad High Court
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
BACKGROUND:
- The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit in 2015 seeking a declaration of her husband’s death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act as he had been missing for over 13 years.
- She had lodged an FIR, published notices in newspapers and sent notices to the District Magistrate, Lucknow regarding her husband’s disappearance.
- The plaintiff stated that her husband employed in the Electricity Department had not attended his duties for over 13 years and without his declaration of death, she couldn’t claim his service benefits.
- Despite no contest from the respondents, the Civil Court dismissed the suit citing Section 34 of the Specific Relief 1963.
- The plaintiff’s counsel argued before the High Court that such a suit should be maintainable emphasizing the deprivation of her husband’s service benefits due to the lack of declaration of death.
OBSERVATIONS:
The Court observed that the suit was not solely for the declaration of civil death but also aimed to obtain service benefits for the wife of the missing person who was employed as a Lineman in the Electricity Department. Regarding Section 34 of the 1963 Act, the Court clarified that it doesn’t prohibit suits for the declaration of civil death rather it regulates suits seeking only a declaration without further relief. However, when further relief isn’t necessary, it’s not mandatory to seek it.
Emphasizing the significance of declaring civil death, the Court highlighted its immediate consequential effects especially in terms of accruing benefits to the legal heirs. Therefore, relief for such benefits cannot be vaguely sought under the guise of further relief. Considering the context of the case where the suit’s basis was to obtain service benefits from the Electricity Department for the deceased, the Court deemed the declaration of the late Akhtar Ali’s death necessary.
Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow with instructions to issue a fresh order within three months taking the above observations into account.
JUDGEMENT:
The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that a suit solely seeking a declaration of civil death is permissible and isn’t prohibited by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 even if the plaintiff doesn’t seek further relief. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal’s bench further clarified that Section 34 of the 1963 Act doesn’t prohibit filing a suit for declaring another person’s civil death if the plaintiff is the legal heir and stands to benefit from such a declaration. Such legal characterization of civil death is deemed beneficial to the plaintiff thereby allowing the suit to proceed.
