1. THIS is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No. 1 namely, the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. at all material times carried on business, inter alia, of life insurance, at No. 4, Chittaranjan Avenue in Calcutta. By the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance No. 1 of 1956 the entire management and administration of the affairs and business of the life department of the defendant No. 1 had vested in and come under the direct control of the Union of India with effect from the 19th January, 1956.

2. ON the 22nd November, 1952 a local agent of the defendant No. 1 approached the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 Shantilal Chhotalal Patel for Having insurance on his life and on the persuasion of the agent Shantilal agreed to have his life insured with the defendant No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The local agent asked Shantilal to put his signature on the proposal form which he took away saying that he would do the rest himself and that on satisfactory report of the Company's Doctor and upon payment of the premium Shantilal would get the policy. The company's doctor thereafter examined Shantilal and after the premium, was paid, the defendant No. 1 issued in his favour its Policy No. 787133. The assured could only sign his name in English and had no knowledge of the language at all.

Shantilal died on the 20th February, 1953 leaving his wife the plaintiff No. 1 and his son Vinoobhai, the plain-tiff No. 2 as his heirs. All the premiums that fell due before his death had been paid by the insured. By letter dated the 27th February, 1953 the plaintiffs informed the defendant No. 1 of the death of Shantilal. Then by letter dated May 26, 1953, the plaintiffs preferred their claim enclosing the relevant documents.

3. AFTER repeated enquiries the defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiffs by letter dated the 6th January, 1954 that the matter was under enquiry and was being expedited and on completion of the enquiry the decision of the defendant No. 1 would be communicated to the plaintiff.

4. THE plaintiffs were contemplating the institution of a suit against the defendant No. 1 when the Ordinance was promulgated. The plaintiffs were advised to serve a notice on the Union of India under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, a notice dated the 13th/17th February, 1956 was served. In reply to the plaintiff's solicitor's letter of demand to the defendant No. 1 dated the 15th December, 1955 and the notice under section 80, the defendant No. 1 by letter dated the 12th March, 1956, wrongfully repudiated the claim by alleging that the assured had suppressed various informations is the time of taking out the policy.

The Union of India is the defendant No. 2. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that the Union has been added as preformed defendant inasmuch as in pursuance of the said ordinance the entire control, management, administration and assets of the defendant No. 1 had vested in or been taken over by the Union. The plaintiffs claim no reliefs against the defendant No. 2. By an amendment of the plaint the Life Insurance Corporation of India has been added as the defendant No. 3 in view of the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956.

5. IT is alleged in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the plaintiffs' claim is; not barred by limitation is as much as the assured died on the 20th February, 1953 and the defendant No. 1, by letter dated the 6th January, 1954 assured the plaintiffs that the said claim, was under enquiry and by letter dated the 12th March, 1956 repudiated the claim for the first time. Moreover, notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary in the instant case.

6. THE defense of the defendant No. 1, inter alia, is that by virtue of the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance 1956 and the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1