Delhi Court Rejects Father's Plea Seeking Declaration Of Son's Death During 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots; Says No Proof That He Even Existed

Citing lack of cogent proof, a Delhi Court on Wednesday rejected an 80 year old man's plea seeking declaration of his son's death, allegedly killed during the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots in the national capital.

Civil Judge Helly Fur Kaur of the Tis Hazari Court rejected the suit filed by one Mian Singh, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir who had also sought issuance of death certificate for his son Ajit Singh.

Noting that the plaintiff had not produced any document to prove that the said Ajit Singh even ever existed, the Court remarked,

"It is a matter of common and legal sense that only a person who is known to have exist in the first place can be declared dead."

In fact, it is also worth noting that Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act as reproduced above is a Proviso to Section 107 of the Act which basically calls for evidence of existence before the proof of death though indeed in form of presumption, the Court added. 

It was Singh's case that in the year 1979, he went to Nepal along with his family to earn his livelihood where he started a business of motor parts trading.

Later, his eldest son, Ajit Singh was working as a contractor for supply of Auto Spare Parts and had gone to Delhi in the last week of October, 1984 for purchasing motor parts to be supplied in Nepal.

It was thus Singh's case that in the first week of November, 1984, his son went missing when the Anti-­Sikh Riots broke out and till date his whereabouts were not known or heard about.

Singh submitted that after making efforts to reach to Delhi in order to trace his son and also to register an FIR, the police was reluctant to lodge an FIR or to accept the missing complaint.

Accordingly, Singh had approached the Delhi Administration and managed to file the missing report of his son. However, with the passage of more than 3 decades of time, Singh had misplaced the said missing report.

He also submitted that despite various communications between Prime Minister's Office, Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the Police departments of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi wherein they requested each other to take appropriate action regarding the release of ex­gratia amount by Singh, no such amount was provided to him on account of there being no death certificate issued qua his son.

"It is quite pertinent to note that it is an admitted fact that no missing report is available with the plaintiff since the police refused to register the same and the one lodged with Delhi Administration got misplaced. More so, there is nothing on record to show that Sh. Ajit Singh visited Delhi in last week of October, 1984," the Court noted.

Perusing the records put forth by Singh to support his contentions, the Court was of the view that no cogent proof was found that substantially and satisfactorily supporter his claim as all the documents were merely based on Singh's representations.

"In fact, it has come to pass that there are some contradictions between the plaint and documents which might assume importance in view of foregoing and forthcoming observations," the Court added. 

Further, despite being put a query by the Court during final arguments, plaintiff did not bring on record any ID proof of Ajit Singh nor any kind of document which could reasonably satisfy the court about his identity and existence.

"Therefore, needless to say, before seeking a declaration that a person is dead, plaintiff had onus to prove existence of Sh. Ajit Singh who is the "person" sought to be declared dead."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the suit.

Click Here To Read Order