JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellants are plaintiffs 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 113 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gudivada, Krishna District and the respondents are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

One late Nimmagadda Seetha Rama Swamy, who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, took out 3 Life Insurance Policies for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and proposals for the above said sums were accepted. The said Seetha Rama Swamy paid necessary amounts till 1968 and failed to pay yearly premiums subsequently. Hence, the policies were lapsed. Later on, the above said 3 policies stood revived on 04-01-1971, 04-01-1971 and 20-7-1972 respectively for the full sums assured under the said policies, on the application made by Seetha Rama Swamy, after verification and acceptance of its contents by the 1st defendant and followed by the payment of arrears of amounts of the premiums and also compliance with necessary requirements as contemplated by law. Seetha Rama Swamy lived for about 8 years after revival of the said policies maintaining good health and died on 26-12-1977. The policies bearing Nos.36313093 and 12995171 were taken out on the life of Seetha Rama Swamy and the policy bearing No. 12921683 was a joint policy taken on the life of Seetha Rama Swamy and 1st plaintiff. After the death of Seetha Rama Swamy, all the formalities for settlement of claims under the said policies were complied with, but inspite of repeated reminders by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st defendant failed to pay the amounts. The 1st defendant gave replies to the 1st plaintiff stating that the husband of 1st plaintiff made deliberate mis-statements and withheld material information regarding his health at the time of getting the policies revived. Hence, the suit.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was accepted by the defendants 2 and 3 by filing a memo, contending that the policies were revived only on the basis of statements and declaration made by the assured late Seetha Rama Swamy regarding his health but after the death of late Seetha Rama Swamy, on investigation, it came to light that the deceased Seetha Rama Swamy had been suffering from diabetes since about 3 years prior to the date of personal statements regarding his health given at the time of revival of the policies. Hence, the Corporation repudiated the claim of plaintiffs. Hence, it is prepared to pay a sum of Rs.40,850/- to the nominee of Seetha Rama Swamy in respect of the above 3 policies.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court:

(1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim the suit amount?

(2) Whether suit against defendants 2 and 3 is not maintainable or in other words whether they are not necessary or proper parties to the suit?

(3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.1,33,527/- with proportionate costs while dismissing rest of the claim without costs, against which the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.

8. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs and Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondents/defendants.

9. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference?

2. To what extent?

10. Point No. 1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference?

The undisputed facts are that the deceased Nimmagadda Seetha Rama Swam