The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'policy' in Section 6 of the Married Womens Property Act includes the proposal and declaration submitted by the insured, and the interpretation of the proposal's wording can create a contingent trust in favor of the beneficiary.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal raises the question of what is meant by the word " policy" in Section 6 of the Married Womens Property Act, 1874. The respondent is the widow of one Sengottiah Goundan, who died on the 16th August, 1928. On the 24th August, 1927, the deceased submitted to the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company, Ltd., a proposal for a policy of insurance on his own life. The proposal was for an endowment policy for Rs. 5,000 payable in 15 years. Clause 12 of the proposal is intended to contain the name of the person nominated to receive the sum assured and his or her relation with the proposer. In this case the words entered were, " self or wife Velayammal " (the name of the respondent). The proposal was accepted and a policy was issued on the 5th May, 1928. The policy contained inter alia the following clause:

This policy of assurance granted by the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company, Ltd. (hereafter called "the company") witnesseth that proceeding upon the proposal and declaration subscribed by Subbaraya Goundar Sengotayya Goundar in and dated 24th August, 1927, which is hereby made a part of this contract and in consideration of the payment already made to the company of the first premium or the first instalment thereof as stated in the sub-joined schedule and of the subsequent premiums or instalments of premiums to be paid as therein provided, the company doth hereby agree that upon proof satisfactory to the directors of the happening of the event or events on which the sum assured is to become payable and/or other benefits accrue as described or referred to in the said schedule and of the title of the claimant or claimants under this policy it will pay the sum stated in the schedule as the sum assured and provide the other benefits, if any.

2. Clause. 8 of the schedule also has bearing on the question which falls for decision. It is in these words:

This policy which together with the schedule and privileges and conditions endorsed thereon, and the proposal and declaration and answers hereto constitutes the entire contract between the company and the assured shall become indisputable after two years from the date of issue of this policy provided the premiums shall have been regularly paid and the age correctly stated, and provided also that no fraud or wilful misrepresentation has been made by the assured.

3. On her husbands death the respondent demanded payment from the company of the amount of the policy. The company declined to pay on the ground that there had been a material misrepresentation with regard to the health of the assured. This resulted in the respondent filing O.S No. 134 of 1933 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore against the Insurance Company and the deceaseds brother Ramaswami Gounden, who had set up a claim that the amount due under the policy constituted a part of the joint family estate. The company raised the issue of material misrepresentation and also contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondent succeeded and a decree was passed on the 24th September, 1934, in her favour for the amount stated in the policy. An appeal followed to this Court, but it was dismissed. The present appellant obtained a decree against the estate of Sengottiah for a sum of Rs. 9,707-2-8 with interest and costs on the 28th February, 1931, and in execution of that decree applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for attachment of the respondents decree against the Insurance Company. The Subordinate Judge held that the application did not lie, and the present appeal is from that decision.

4. The appellant contends in the first place that this case does not fall within the provisions of Section 6 of the Married Womens Property Act, because there is nothing on the face of the policy itself which creates a trust in favour of the respondent. The Subordinate Judge held that the proposal must be deemed to form part of the