JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs who are father, widow, son and daughter of one Rajarsh Kishore Misra respectively. The aforesaid Rajarsh Kishore Misra, (hereinafter R.K. Misra) for short, joined the Army Education Core some time in 1962 - 63 as Havaldar and was attached to 19 Madras Regiment. He availed his annual leave in 1968 and thereafter he returned back to his Unit but soon thereafter he became sick and was hospitalised. On dischrage from the hospital, he disappeared and after a Court of Enquiry, he was declared army deserter with effect from 16th August, 1968. The case of the plaintiffs was that they have not heard about the said R.K. Misra since 1968 and even others who would naturally hear of him if he had been alive have also not heard anything about him for more than 7 years. The plaintiffs' case further was that in view of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, there was a presumption that he was dead and, therefore, the plaintiffs, as his heirs, were entitled to the Provident fund, Family Pension, Gratuity, etc. payable in respect of the deceased. After serving the requisite notice under Section 80 C.P.C. the present suit was filed seeking a declaration that R.K. Misra should be presumed to be dead since he had not been heard of by the members of his family and all others concerned who would naturally have heard of him had he been alive and consequently the plaintiffs were entitled to the Funds, Family Pension and service benefits and other assets left by him. 3. The suit was contested by the Union of India and after mentioning the various facts regarding service and his consequent desertion, it was stated that nothing has been heard of about the deserter and that in accordance with Army Rules he will be discharged from service on the expiry of 20 years from the date of desertion. It was also mentioned that certain amounts lying to the credit of said R.K. Misra were either liable to be forfeited or could not be paid as there was no provision for the payment thereof. It was also said that in case of desertion, no Family Pension or Gratuity was admissible. It was also mentioned that certain amounts lying to the credit of said R.K. Misra were either liable to be forfeited or could not be paid as there was no provision for the payment thereof. It was also said that in case of desertion, no Family Pension or Gratuity was admissible. As regards the claim due under the Life Insurance Policy, it was contended that there was no mention about any such policy with the Army Authorities. It may be stated here that although a relief in respect of Life Insurance Policy has been claimed in the suit, curiously the Corporation has not been impleaded as a defendant. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following five issues were struck by the trial court : 1. Where the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed ? 2. Where this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 Specific Relief Act ? 4. Whether notice given by the plaintiff under Section 80 C.P.C. is invalid? 5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? 5. The trial court has found that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that plaintiffs and all others who would have ordinarily heard about R.K. Misra have not heard of him for more than 7 years before the filing of the suit. However, by adopting a curious logic, the trial court has held against the plaintiffs on the ground that there was no presumption under Section 108 about the actual date of death. Sections 107 and 108, it must be remembered deal with the question whether a person is alive or dead. The law raises no presumption as to the date or time of a person's death and if one has to establish the precise period of death of a person he must do so by adducing evidence but he cannot rely upon the presumption of death or of continuance of life. If a person has not been heard of for 7 years, there is a presumption of law that he is dead, but, as stated above, it is not a matter of presumption as to at what time within that period the person had died. In the instant case, however, we are not concerned as to the actual date of death of the person. In the instant case, however, we are not concerned as to the actual date of death of the person. All that is relevant is as to whether on the date of the suit if could be presumed that the person was dead. Since R.K. Mishra had not been Board of since August, 1968, and the suit had been filed in August, 1982, it could legitimately be presumed that he was dead on that date. We Find it difficult to agree with the view of the trial court that a declaration about the death of R.K. Misra could not be made. The fact that the person has not been heard of for more than 7 years is not seriously denied by the defendant. Although in defendants own letter dated 7th December, 1968, (Ext.A - 1) there is a mention of certain enquiries conducted by the police authorities which indicated that he was living with has brother - in - law near Allahabad but there is nothing else in evidence to show if really R.K. Misra was ever contacted or traced out. There is no evidence on record to establish that he was alive. The plaintiffs' evidence, both oral and documentary, clearly proves that nothing had been heard about R.K. Misra by those who should have normally known about his whereabouts since 1968 was enough to raise presumption of his death. In our opinion, the court could presume that R.K. Misra was dead when the suit was filed. 6. The latter part of the relief claim in the suit is with regard to declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the Funds, Family Pension and other service benefits besides claim under the Life Insurance Policy. Before proceeding further it may be pointed out here that plaintiff No. 1 is the father of the deceased and he is not an heir according to Hindu Succession Act, not being an heir of class - I. Plaintiff No. 1, therefore, is not entitled to any right in the claims due to his deceased son. 7. Before proceeding further it may be pointed out here that plaintiff No. 1 is the father of the deceased and he is not an heir according to Hindu Succession Act, not being an heir of class - I. Plaintiff No. 1, therefore, is not entitled to any right in the claims due to his deceased son. 7. The claim in respect of the Life Insurance Policy to which a reference has been made in the plaint cannot be allowed in this suit as neither the Life Insurance Corporation is a party to the suit nor any particulars of the policy on the life of the deceased have been given in the plaint and there is no evidence either in respect thereof. In the absence of these particulars and behind the back of the Life Insurance Corporation the court cannot grant any declaration to the plaintiffs. It would, however, be open to the plaintiffs to lay there claim before the Corporation for payment of any amount that any be due under any Policy on the life of the deceased Rajesh Kishore Misra on the basis of the declaration granted by this Court that he is presumed to be dead on the date of the suit. It will be for the Life Insurance Corporation to consider the claim and pay the amount due to the legal heirs of the deceased. 8. As regards the claim for Provident Funds, Family Pension and other service benefits, as claimed by the plaintiffs pertain to service rendered by the deceased. We find that no details or particulars of the said claims have been set out in the plaint. No issue was also framed by the trial court although these claims were denied by the Union of India. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 as widow and children of the deceased can always approach the concerned authority for the said claim on the basis of the declaration granted by this court. However, it would not be proper for this Court to grant a declaration in respect thereof in this Suit and the matter will have to belief for decision by the concerned authorities if and when a claim in this respect is laid before them. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that plaintiff No. 1 is not entitled to the declaration sought. However, Plaintiff Nos. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that plaintiff No. 1 is not entitled to the declaration sought. However, Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 arc entitled to the declaration that Rajesh Kishore Misra should be presumed to be dead on the date of the suit. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside. A declaration is granted to plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 that Havaldar No. 9504083 Rajesh Kishore Misra of the Army Education Core attached to 19 Madras Regiment is presumed to be dead on the date of the suit and that they would be entitled to all the claims admissible to them as his legal heirs in respect of the funds, Family Pension and other service benefits. The plaintiffs are also entitled to their costs throughout.