The repudiation of liability by an insurance company does not constitute a part of the cause of action in a contract of insurance and, therefore, the mere receipt of the letters of repudiation at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on the court at that place to try the suit.

( 1 ) ONE Shiv Lal Chopra insured his life with the L. l. C. of India and took out 3 policies: bearing 26988057 (Dec. 1966, Kanpur Rs. 20,000. 00); 27c61238 (May, 1967, Kanpur. 20,000. 00.): 8108987 (Dec. ,1967, Varnasi, 25,000. 00 ).

( 2 ) SHIV Lal died on September 20, 1968 at So par in Bihar. His widow demanded the insurance money from the L. I. C. The\l. I. C. by their three letters dated February 20, 1970, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that Shiv Lal was suffering from heart ailment and consulted medical men and took treatment from them and did not disclose these facts in his statement and instead gave false answers. This was their reply with regard to two policies dated May 1967 and December 1967 which were taken at Kanpur and Varanasi As regards the third policy taken out in Decercber, 1966, from Kanpur the corporation said that nothing was payable as policy had lapsed by non payment of the yearly premium.

( 3 ) SHIV Lal s widow Shrimati Kamla Chopra has instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 88,400. 00 against the Life Insurance Cor poration of India at Delhi. The Corporation in its written statement has taken the preliminary objection that the suit is not triable at Delhi. On March, 1972, the following preliminary issue was sturck :

"whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit 7"

( 4 ) THE parties have not led any evidence. Only the above three letters dated February 20, 1970 have been admitted by the Corporaion. All the three are letters of repudiation of the plaintiff s claim. These letters were issued from the Central Zonal Office of the L. l. C. at Kanpur. In the plaintiff was admitted that the two policies were issued from Kanpur and the third policy was issued at Varanasi. In para 17 it was said :

"because parties to the suit reside and work for gain at Delhi where defendant No. 1- Corporation has its zonal/divisional/regional branch offices and the claim in suit is payable and, therefore, this court ihas jurisdiction to try the suit. "in para 1 of the plaintiff has said that defendant No. 1 is a statutory Corporation with its central office at Bombay, Northern zonal;divisional, Regional office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. It has also been said that the Corporation has Zonal Divisional Regional Branch office throuhout India. 147 1974. Rajdhani Law Reporter 145. {. Avadh Behari, J.)

( 5 ) IN tha written statm;nt the Corporation denied that any cause of action arose at Dilhi. It is said that ths to insurants palicies in suit wits issued from Kanpur o hci and the third insurance policy was issued froal Varanasi ani- ths cause of actian aross at Rinpur and Varanasi where tha contracts of in^uranse wire entered. into. tt was deiied that the plymint WAS to bi mids at, Oslhi. Under the terms of ths insurance policies ths am3uat was payable at Kanpur in respict of the two policies and in respect of thi third policy at Varanasi. It was also alleged thit the central office of the Corporation is at Bombay and the mere fact that the Northern Zonal office of ths Carp3ratioa is in Dslhi will not confer jurisdiction oa this court to try the suit. In the replication the plaintiff has reiterated that the zonal offics of the Corpora- tion being at New Dilhi and the claim under the policies being payable at New Delhi this court has jurisdiction to try this suit. It was not disputed that the central Office of the Corporation is at Bombay. Now the question is has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit?

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that this court has jurisdiction on two grounds. Firstly, it is said that the letters of repudiation were addressed to the plaintiff at New Delhi and were received by her at New Delhi. Secondly, he has said that since the zonal office of the Corporation is at New Delhi the suit can- be brought here. For his submission that this court has jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that the letters of repudiation w