( 1 ) THE plaintiff (Daulat Ram) is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000. 00 on the insurance policy, which had been taken by Smt. Chawli Devi being her adopted son; he was the nominee of the policy. The policy was effective from 13-9-1955 in respect of which, it is stated, that the premiums due until the death of Smt. Chawli Devi on 30-9-1956 had been paid.

( 2 ) THE suit was dismissed by the learned Commercial Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi on 12-6-1961 on the grounds that she had no insurable Interest and that she had stated in the proposal that she was literate and did not observe pardah. which statements had been proved to be incorrect The suit was resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation, the successor-in-interest of the Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. . also on the ground that she was suffering from diabetes which fact she had not disclosed; the finding on this question of fact was in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE most important question for consideration, it seems to us. is whether Smt. Chawli Devi had an insurable interest in the policy. It has been stated by the plaintiff (P. W. 6) that the premiums due in respect of insurance policies had been paid out of the funds of Smt. Chawli Devi and necessary entries were made in the books of the firm of Mehtab Rai Suraj Bhan, the Joint Hindu Family firm of which she was a member. Copies of the Khata of Smt. Chawli Devi in the said firm relating to the years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 were filed and marked as Ex. P. W. 6/1 (The translation has been printed at pages 83 and 84 ). It is seen from the said translation that a sum of Rupees 3,254-15-0. as in the year 1957-58. had been carried over from, previous year in the Khata as a debit against Smt. Chawli Devi. Though the Rokar had not been filed and details had not been fully elicited from P. W. 6. it had been elicited in his re-examination as follows:

"the above premiums of Shrimati Chawli Devi paid by me were debited to her account in the books of Mehtab Rai Suraj Bhan. "no further question was put thereafter to P. W. 6 by the insurer.

( 4 ) SHRI J. P. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India, contends that this statement should not have been elicited in re-examination and this having been elicited in re-examination he had no further opportunity of cross-examinining the witness. It does not appear from the record that any objection was taken to the said question which was thus elicited in the re-examination. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination, and if new matter is by permission of the Court, noticed in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. It is necessary in this context to refer to the evidence given by the plaintiff both In chief-examination and in cross-examination. He had simply stated in chief-examination that Smt. Chawli Devi was insured with Indian Mutual Life Assurance Company (a different company) for Rs. 7,500. 00 in the shape of two policies of Rs. 5,000. 00 and Rs. 2,500. 00. These policies were taken in 1953. The suit policy was taken by her in 1955 of her own accord and not at the plaintiff s instance. He stated in cross-examination that the annual premium for the policy of 1954 was Rs. 554/8. 00. The premium for the policies of 1953 was paid on behalf of the plaintiff from out of her account with the firm Mehtab Rai Suraj Bhan. The premium receipts in regard to those policies were filed with the income-tax authorities. For the policy in dispute, a cheque of Rs. 500. 00 was initially given. It was signed by P, W. 6 and drawn against his account in the bank in question. After the proposal was accepted by the insurer he paid Rs. 128/5/ In cash for the suit policy. The second premium was also paid by hlm. in cash. But these premium receipts also were with the income-tax authorities.

( 5 ) THE plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document