The Court upheld its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and found the plaintiff entitled to an amount of Rs.19,66,844/- for the damage suffered by Building Nos.1 and 2 of the Bhakt Niwas due to earthquakes.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Since both these appeals raise challenge to the judgment dated 25.04.2010 in Special Civil Suit No.41 of 2004 decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamgaon, they are being decided together by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded is that the plaintiff is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is represented by its Managing Trustee. The Trust runs various educational institutions and charity hospitals at various places in the State of Maharashtra. The Trust on 04.08.1977 purchased non-agricultural property at Pandharpur for construction of Sant Gajanan Maharaj Temple and in that process it spent an amount of Rs.6,96,00,000/-. With a view to safeguard the said property, it entered into an agreement of insurance with the defendant which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The policy of insurance was dated 13.09.2001 and by paying premium of Rs.40,399/-, the risk to the Temple along with Bhakt Niwas No.1 to 4, the compound wall, the main gate as well other miscellaneous material was sought to be covered. The risk from all damages to the said property was got covered and the policy operated for the period from 13.09.2001to 12.09.2002. By amending the plaint it was further pleaded that on account of earthquakes during the period from 15.05.2001 to 04.09.2003, there was damage caused to the said structures. A certificate to that effect was issued by the Collector of Latur. Similarly, river Chandrabhaga that was flowing adjoining the Temple witnessed heavy floods during the period from 15.05.2001 to 04.09.2003. The properties of the trust that were insured were submerged in about twelve feet deep flood water for three days thereby causing damage to it. As a result of the same, cracks developed to the foundation to the structure of the buildings and the Building designer advised dismantling the entire structure. On the advice of the Civil Engineer, the Temple, the main gate as well as the Bhakt Niwas was dismantled and thereafter reconstructed. The Trust was required to spent huge amount for dismantling the existing structures and thereafter reconstructing the same. On the basis of these developments the Trust pleaded that it was required to bear substantial costs and therefore there was a cause of action for recovering an amount of Rs.6,75,00,000/- from the defendants. It was pleaded the insurance agreement was entered into at Khamgaon as the defendants had their office there and it was renewed from time to time also at Khamgaon. The premium was paid at Khamgaon and therefore part of cause of action had arisen there. On these pleadings, the Trust filed Special Civil Suit No.41/2004 on 19.08.2004 seeking a declaration that it was entitled forthe insurance claim under the policy for the damages caused to the buildings. A decree for an amount of Rs.6,75,00,000/- was prayed for.

3. The Insurance Company-defendant filed its written statement at Exhibit 11. It raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the civil Court at Khamgaon on the ground that the property insured was located at Pandharpur which fell within the jurisdiction of the Solapur Court. The execution of the insurance policy was not disputed nor the fact that the premium for the same was paid. The claim for the insurance was however opposed on the ground that no damage had been caused by the earthquake as alleged. Despite request being made to the Trust to supply information about the date and time when the earthquake occurred, no details were given. It was further denied that by virtue of floods to river Chandrabhaga, damage had been caused to the building in question. It was alleged that on account of defect in construction the buildings developed cracks and therefore such damage wa