Presumption as to being the insurance amount separate property.

[The suit was by the widow of a coparcener who died in 1938 under the Hindu Woman’s Right to Property Act for a partition of the properties alleged to belong to the joint family and for incidental reliefs. On appeal from the preliminary decree the High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the non-agricultural properties of the joint family. In pursuance of the preliminary decree as thus modified by the High Court there were further proceedings by way of division of immoveables and taking of accounts and a final decree was eventually passed. On appeal against that decree the defendants attacked certain items which formed part of the account taking. The judgment of the High Court dealt with those items seriatim. Surcharge item 5 alone is relevant for the purposes of this report and the portion of the judgment dealing with it is as follows:

Surcharge item No. 5:

The next item relates to insurance policies taken in the name of the members of the family. They are as follows:

(1) a policy in the name of Venkataratnam for Rs. 6,000,

(2) A policy in the name of Venkatappiah for Rs. 5,000,

(3) and (4) Policies in the name of the first defendant for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively, and

(5) A policy in the name of the fourth defendant for Rs. 10,000.

From the evidence it is clear that the premia in respect of these policies were paid from and out of the joint family funds. But it is also clear that the joint family accounts specify definitely the amount of the premia as relating to the policy effected by this or that coparcener. There seems to have been a separate khata in which the amounts paid towards the premia for the several policies were separately entered. The first question which falls for decision as regards the amounts of these policies is, are the amounts of the policies joint property or do they form the separate property of the individual coparceners concerned. There appears to be little direct authority on the question. From a common-sense point of view it is obvious that when one of the coparceners insures his life he intends the benefit of the policy for his heirs and not for the other coparceners. The presumption, therefore, would be that the profit, if any, made by means of the policy would not be joint family asset. The utmost that the other coparceners in equity can claim is that the assured should be debited with the premia which have been paid from joint family funds.

In support of the contention that the amounts of the policy should be treated as joint family property if the premia were paid from joint family funds, learned counsel cited two decisions of this Court. In Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Limited v. Vanteddu1, four sons of one Nagiah filed a suit against an insurance company to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on a life insurance policy executed by the company in favour of the said Nagiah. The policy was intended for the benefit of Nagiah’s wife and children. He died in 1902 leaving four sons and two daughters. The four sons claimed to be entitled to the amount to the exclusion of the two daughters of Nagiah. The company repudiated their exclusive claim on the ground that all the children of Nagiah including the daughters were entitled to the amount. It was held that the sons were entitled to the policy amount. The District Judge held that the premia paid for the policy came out of the joint family property of Nagiah and his sons and that the sons alone were entitled to the amount. This finding was not impeached before this Court and the plaintiffs’ (sons’) title to recover the whole amount was admitted. The learned Judges observed that there could be no doubt that this view was correct. This is all that there is in this decision bearing on the point, and we fail to see what principle we could deduce from it which would govern the present case. Obviously whether the policy was joint family property or the separate property of Nagiah, the only p