Burden of proof as to the exact date of death.

The Respondent’s husband disappeared from his home in 1946. He was then in a disordered state of mind. Persons who would have heard of him if he had been alive had not heard of him when the respondent filed Application No. 1880 of 1955. To that application, she made certain insurance companies, which held policies on his life, respondents. One of these insurance companies was the National Indian Life Insurance Company. In that company, the respondent’s husband had a policy for Rs 5,000. The company’s interest has now devolved on the Life Insurance Corporation. This application is made by the Life Insurance Corporation.

In Application No. 1880 of 1955 the respondent prayed for an order (1) declaring that her husband Venkatarama Ayyar must be presumed to have died on or after 16th March, 1953, on the expiry of 7 years from the date of disappearance on 16th March, 1946 and that she was the sole beneficiary under the insurance policies mentioned in Application No. 1880 of 1955, and (2) directing the insurance companies to dispose of her claims under the said policies in accordance with law. Notice was served on the insurance companies. They did not appear. On 8th July, 1955, this Court passed an order declaring that the respondents husband V. Venkatarama Ayyar might then he presumed to have died and directing the insurance companies to pay into this Court to the credit of these proceedings the amounts payable under the respective insurance policies. In pursuance of that direction, the Natoinal Indian Life Insurance Co., deposited of Rs 5,000. After depositing the money, the Insurance Company represented that it was entitled to refund of Rs. 1,380-12-0. That sum has been retained in Court pending investigation of the company’s claim. The rest of the money has been paid over to the respondent.

The insurance company’s claim arises this way. The respondent’s husband was employed under the Government of India. He had his insurance premia paid from out of his provident fund. The policy had been assigned by him and the respondent (who was his nominee under the policy) to the Government of India. The Government of India continued to pay the premia accruing due on the policy even after they received report of the respondent’s husband’s disappearance. That continued until 1948. They discontinued payment from and after 1948. Under a clause in the contract of insurance, the insurance company was entitled to keep the policy alive by paying the required premia. The applicant states — and I accept the statement — that the company, acting in exercise of its powers under that clause, paid insurance premia and kept the policy alive. The sums thus paid, with interest, aggregate to the amount now claimed by the applicant, namely, Rs 1380-12-0. Under the relevant clause in the contract between the insured and the insurance company, the insurance company was entitled to deduct that sum from the money due on the policy, when it became payable after the death of the insured. Under the terms of that clause, the insurance company’s present representative, the Life Insurance Corporation, prays for payment of that sum.

The first objection that is raised is that the order passed by this Court on 8th July 1955, implied a finding that the insurance company was not entitled to any part of the sum which the company was directed to deposit in court. I am unable to agree In Application No. 1880 of I955, the prayer of the respondent relating to the insurance companies was that they be directed to dispose of her claim under the said policies in accordance with law. That prayer did not give to any of the insurance companies notice that a claim on their part to retain any part of the insurance amounts would be heard or decided by the Court on that application. They were, therefore, not bound to appear, provided they had no objection to the prayer being granted, that is to say, provided they had no objection to the Court directing them to dispose of the respondent’