P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are three applications and Counsel engaged in them are all agreed that the decision in one will cover the decision in the other two, the point of law being the same in each case. The application that was argued before me is the application on behalf of Rama Devi, the widow of Nathmull Periwal deceased of No. 26/3, Armenian Street, Calcutta in Suit No. 369 of 1953 (Ramballav Dhandhania v. Gangadhar Nathmull) for removal-of the attachment levied at the instance of the plaintiff on the moneys payable under the Insurance Policies effected by the deceased.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in this suit obtained a decree against the defendant firm Gangadhar Nathmull. The firm, was a registered firm with two partners, Gangadhar Periwal and Nathmull Periwal. The decree was dated 16-1-1953. Nathmull Periwal died on 2-5-1955, leaving the applicant as his widow and Dhanpatrai Pachisia as his son-in-law. Prior to his death, Nathmull Periwal insured his life with Messrs. National Insurance Company Limited under two different Life Insurance Policies for the value of Rs. 25. 000/- under each of such Policies. In each of such Policies Nathmull Periwal nominated his widow and son-in-law to receive the insurance moneys. The terms of the nomination in each Policy were as follows :"i Nathmull Periwal, the Holder of Policy No. 558347 do hereby nominate my wife Shrimati Rama Devi Periwal, aged 52 years, and my son-in-law Sri Dhanpatrai Panchisia, the survivor or survivors, as the persons to receive the moneys under the above Policy in the event of my prior death. I request the National Insurance Company Limited to note the said nomination and send me a written acknowledgment thereof. Dated at Calcutta this 31st day of March, 1953. Sd/-Nathmull Periwal. "the nomination in the other Policy was exactly in the same terms, only the Policy number being different. The plaintiff decree-holder in execution of his decree obtained on 17-6-1955 a prohibitory order of attachment restraining the applicant from receiving the insurance moneys under the said Policies.

( 3 ) THE whole contention of the applicant is that after the death of the assured Nathmull Periwal the moneys due under the Policies did not belong to the estate of the deceased assured and were, therefore, not attachable after his death in pursuance of the decree against him. In other words, the short point is that the moneys payable to the nominee under the terms ol the above nomination do not form part of the estate of the deceased judgment-debtor and, therefore, are not

answerable for the satisfaction of the decree obtained against him. As will appear from the date of the attachment, such attachment was after the death of the judgment-debtor.

( 4 ) THE main argument on behalf of the applicant was advanced by Mr. S. Roy. Such argument was based on Section 39 (6), Insurance Act of 1938. That section provides :"where the nominee, or, if there are more nominees than one, a nominee or nominees survive the person whose life is insured, the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to such survivor or survivors. "on the strength of this statutory provision it is argued that the amount secured by the Policy shall be payable to the widow and the son-in-law who are the nominees and survivors in this case and, therefore, moneys due under the said Policy do not belong to the estate of the deceased judgmentxdebtor who was the assured. Mr. Roy contends that the application is made under Section 47, Civil P. C. , because the question raised involved the satisfaction, discharge or otherwise of the decree in question and it concerned a representative of the judgment-debtor.

( 5 ) THE issue then for decision is whether such nomination in the Insurance Policy takes the moneys due under such Policy out of the estate of the assured. In support of his argument Mr. Roy relied on the Decision of the Court of Appeal in -Krishna Lal Sadhu v. Promila Bala Dassi', 1928 Cal 518 [air V 15] (A ). That

Click Here to Read the rest of this document