( 1 ) THE short, but interesting question which aries for consideration in this civil revision filed under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code. is whether the death of an assured in Delhi would give the Courts in Delhi jurisdiction to try a suit against Life Insurance Corporation for recovery of the sum assured.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the deceased bad taken out a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 98. 000. 00 and had made the plaintiff as her nominee. This policy was issued by the Jullundur Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation.

( 3 ) THE assured died in Delhi on 19th January 1982. The plaintiff, being the nominee and heir of the deceased, applied to the Life Insurance Corporation for payment of money. The money was not paid and the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi for the recovery of Rs. 99. 990. 00.

( 4 ) IN the plaint it was, inter-alia, stated that a prat of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi because it was here that the wife of the plaintiff had died.

( 5 ) IN the written statement an objection had been taken with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. Accordingly to the petitioner/defendant the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 6 ) THE trial court framed the following preliminary issue :

"1. Whether the Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to try this suit ? Opp"

( 7 ) THE aforesaid issue was tried as a preliminary issue. The Additional District Judge, Delhi, by his order dated 11th May. 1984 held that the Courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction to try the suit because a part of the cause of action had arisen here. According to the trial court the death of the assured formed a part of the cause of action and as the death had occurred in Delhi, therefore, the suit can be filed here The preliminary issue was accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

( 8 ) MR. Arun Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition filed against the aforesaid decilion, has sougbt to contend that the death of the wife of the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a part of the cause of action He contends that the death is only a contingency in a point of time upon which the money becomes payable. The learned counsel fur- ther contends that Section 20 Civil Procedure Code. has to be so construed so as to serve the principles of the Statute. It is contended that the framers of the Code postulated that K suit should ordinarily be tried at a place where evidence is really available. According to the learned counsel the Insurance Policy had been taken out at Jullundur and the deceased had originally been examined by the doctors there and all the evidence would be readily available at Jullundur and not at New Delhi. It is lastly contended, that death is not an essential part of the cause of action. The learned counsel has also, in support of his arguments, relied upon a decision reported as Jupiter General Insurance Company Ltd. and others v. Abdul Aziz. AIR 1924 Rangoon 2.

( 9 ) IT is now well settled that a cause of action means a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed. To put it differently, if a suit cannot succeed without proving and particular fact then that fact becomes an essential fact. It cannot be disputed that, in the case of a Life Insurance Policy having been taken, a claim cannot be made for payment of money before the policy has matured or unless and until the person taking the policy has died. In order, therefore. to make a claim it is necessary to allege and prove the death of a person. It is only if the person assured dies that there can possibly be a liability of the insurance company to pay the money. In the case of a life insurance policy the money is payable before its maturity on the happening of a contingency and that contingency is the death of the assured. it is only when that event occures that, prio