JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 77,805.85 being the amount due for four insurance policies held by her deceased husband. The defendant-appellant Life Insurance Corporation denied the claim on the plea that the deceased, while filling up the proposal forms for the policies, was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations and suppression of material facts with regard to his health. The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court reversed the decision and passed a decree.

2. The deceased husband of the plaintiff was described in the policies as T. R. Gurupadaiah but in the plaint his name has been mentioned a Gurupadappa. However, since in our view the correct spelling of the name is not material for purposes of the present case, it is not necessary to give further details in regard to the difference in the two names. We agree with the Corporation that the correct name was Gurupadaiah and since the policies under which the claim in the suit has been made bear the said name, it is immaterial if he was also known by a slightly different name. After the receipt of the claim from the plaintiff, the Corporation, feeling suspicious, made an inquiry through its Administrative Officer Sri V. V. Narasimhan (D.W. 11) who according to the defence collected sufficient material to establish fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the insured at the time of taking out the policies. The insured died on 14-10-1961 in a hospital for tubercular patients. According to the case of the Corporation the deceased was suffering from acute diabetes and disceases of the lungs of which he was fully aware at the time of taking out the policies in question, and fraudulently denied the same in the proposal forms.

3. The four policies were respectively taken out for Rs. 20,000/- on 30-7-1959, for Rs. 20,000/- on 16-7-1960, for Rs. 10,000/- on 16-7-1960 and for Rs. 25,000 on 23-8-1961. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the last policy was of a date only about two months before the death of the insured it cannot be believed that he did not know about his illness. Even the earlier three policies have been taken out only a short time earlier, and having regard to the nature of the diseases it must be assumed that the insured was fraudulently suppressing the relevant fact. The questions on the proposal forms which the insured had to fill up have been placed before us and it has been argued that several answers submitted by the insured were definitely false to his own knowledge. It was claimed that the Administrative Officer of the Corporation was, on inquiry, informed by several doctors about the chronic illness of the insured and this information was corroborated by documentary evidence.

4. The learned Counsel of the respondent has contended that it is true that her husband died of tuberculosis but he or any member of the family had no knowledge of his illness at the time of taking out the policies. He was keeping good health and actively taking part in his business and the discovery of the disease which accounted for his early demise was made very late. The allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts made in the written statement were Emphatically denied on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial. The trial Court, however, accepted the defence and dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal the High Court, on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties and the arguments addressed on their behalf, held that the defendant had failed to prove that the insured was suffering from diabetes or tuberculosis at the time of filling of the proposals for the insurance policies or that he had given any false answer in his statements or suppressed any material fact which he was under a duty to disclose. The finding of the trial Cou