The language used in the insurance policy should indicate the intention of the assured to create a trust for the benefit of his wife, and the absence of specific words like 'for the benefit of his wife' does not preclude the inference of a statutory trust in favor of the wife.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This is an application to show cause why the Official Trustee of Madras be not directed as Trustee of the petitioner herein to recover on her behalf of the amount due under Policy No. 6033 of R. Srinivasa Aiyar, deceased, effected with the United India Life Assurance Company and to pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, Abhiramavalli Ammal, is the widow of R. Srinivasa Aiyar who was the Head Master of Saint Antonys Secondary School, Negapatam. The petition is opposed by his two brothers. The late Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar insured his life for a sum of Rs. 1,000 with the United India Life Assurance Company, Madras. The policy so far as is material is as follows:

This policy...witnesseth that in consideration of the payment already made to the company...as stated in the subjoined schedule...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 as described in the said schedule and the title of the person or persons who may be entitled to receive the same, it will pay the sum stated in such schedule as the sum assured to such person or persons.

2. The schedule to the policy stated inter alia the following particulars under the following headings Name, address and R. Srinivasan Esq., calling of the Head Master, assured. Amount Rs. 1,000 only. Sum To whom The assured or his assured payable wife Abhiramavalli if he predeceases her.

3. The petitioners right to recover the amount is based on Section 6, Married Womens Property Act, 1874, which runs as follows:

A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife and children, or any of them, shall enure and be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children or any of them, according to the interest so expressed, and shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains, be subject to the control of the husband, or to its creditors or form part of his estate.

4. This language is in material particulars identical with the language of Section 10, English Married Womens Property Act, 1870. In England the Act of 1870 was repealed by the Married Womens Property Act, 1882. Section 11 of that Act corresponding to Section 10 of the previous Act and Section 6 of our Act is as follows:

A policy of assurance effected by any man on his own life, and expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, or of his children, or of his wife and children, or any of them; or by any woman on her own life, and expressed to be for the benefit of her husband or of her children or her husband and children, or any of them; shall create a trust in favour of the objects therein named; and the moneys payable under any such policy shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains unperformed, form part of the estate of the insured, or be subject to his or her debts.

5. It will be observed that in two particulars the terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1882, differ from the terms of Section 10 of the Act of 1870. The words "on the face of it" appearing in Section 10 are omitted in Section 11 of the later Act, and for the words "shall...be deemed to be a trust" appearing in Section 10 of the Act of 1870 we have the words "shall create a trust in favour of the objects therein named, etc.," in Section 11 of the Act of 1882.

6. Relying on Section 6, Married Womens Property Act, 1874, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that by using the words that the sum is payable to "the assured or his wife Abhiramavalli if he predeceases her" it is expressed on the face of the policy that it is for the benefit of the wife of Srinivasa Aiyar if he predeceases her, and so, the policy shall enure" and be deemed to bo a trust for the benefit" of the petitioner within the meaning of that section. On the, other hand, the argument of the respondents is that the words used in the policy are not specific