Repudiation is complete when it reaches its destination.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

The first defendant in O.S. No. 20 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, has filed the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit against the first defendant and 15 others, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30, 41, 285.30 from the first defendant with interest thereon at the rate of 19.5 per cent. per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment. By judgment and decree dated October 25, 1990, the court below has granted a decree for Rs. 19, 18, 792 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from October 5, 1983, to September 29, 1986, and from the date of the suit till the date of realisation with proportionate costs, hence the present appeal by the first defendant.

The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder : The plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with the first defendant on September 12, 1983, to cover the second defendant's buildings, machinery, stocks of all kinds, raw materials, gunny bags, barrels, tins, firewood, waste cashew nut shells, etc., stored and lying in the building at Survey No. 195/1, Neyveli Road, Panickenkuppam Village, Panruti Taluk, South Arcot District, against risk of fire, riot, etc., for the period between September 12, 1983 and September 12, 1984. Defendants Nos. 7 to 12 stood as guarantors to the loan transaction between the plaintiff and the second defendant firm. The first defendant issued a policy of insurance to the plaintiff on September 17, 1983. Under the policy, the first defendant is bound to indemnify the plaintiff against any loss or damage the plaintiff may suffer or incur because of loss or damage to the properties of the second defendant covered by the said policy of insurance, due to fire, riot, strike, etc., to the extent of Rs. 53 lakhs. On October 5, 1983, there was a big fire in the second defendant's factory at Panickenkuppam village. Due to the fire, the properties covered by the contract of insurance in question suffered a heavy loss. As per the contract of insurance, the first defendant is liable to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff as well as the second defendant. A suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 19, 18, 702. After taking a long time, the first defendant repudiated the claim of the second defendant on untenable grounds by its letter dated September 23, 1985, received by the plaintiff on September 28, 1985. Thereafter, in spite of deliberations and representations, the first defendant has not chosen to settle the claim; hence the present suit.The first defendant filed a written statement wherein the insurance company admitted the policy of insurance. However, it is stated that their liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and clauses attached to and forming part of the said policy. The plaintiff has no valid cause of action inasmuch as they have instituted a suit on September 29, 1986, beyond a period of 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer of liability as per condition No. 19 of the policy in question. The date of repudiation is September 23, 1985 and the 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer expired on September 23, 1986. The claim should be dismissed for not having been made the subject-matter of a suit in a court of law within the period stipulated under condition 19 of the policy in question. The insured failed to comply with condition No. 3 before the occurrence of the alleged loss. The insured had two policies of insurance with United India Insurance Company Ltd. during the period between April 29, 1983 and April 29, 1984. The insured/plaintiff failed to notify this material fact to the first defendant as provided under condition No. 3 of the policy and hence committed breach of the policy conditions. In any event, it is stated that the loss of property to the value of Rs. 19, 19, 892 is erroneous.

In the light of the above pleadings, two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff as PWs.-1 a