JUDGMENT:- This is the plaintiffs second appeal.

2. The relevant facts are these; The plaintiff filed the suit, against two defendants-respondents. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is the alleged widow of Mahanth Shankeranand Nath deceased and the defendant-respondent No. 2 is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Two main reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff.

(1) A declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 7,000/- or any other amount due on the two insurance policies in dispute.

(2) A permanent injunction was claimed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant-respondent No. 1 restraining her from realising the amounts due on the said two policies from the defendant-respondent No. 2. According to the plaint allegations there is a Math known as Bawa Sarwanath Math of which Mahanth Mahadeo Nath happened to be the Mahanth Gaddinashin and in that capacity he filed the suit. It was stated that the Mahanth had no personal interest in the income of the Maths properties. Mahanth Shankeranand Nath was the preceding Mahanth of the Math who got himself insured with the Life Insurance Corporation of India under two policies - one dated 28-12-1957 for Rupees 25,000/- and the other dated 5-8-1960 for Rs. 30,000/-. Certain instalments of premium due under the said two policies were paid by the assured out of the Maths fund and the said policies were taken out for the benefit of the Math and belonged to the Math. Subsequently, Mahanth Shankeranand Nath resigned his Mahantship in 1961 and the plaintiff became the Mahanth of the Math. Mahanth Shankeranand Nath died on 2nd September 1963. On his death the plaintiff claimed the proceeds of the two policies the defendant-respondent No. 2 but the latter stated that the assured had nominated the defendant-respondent No. 1 as the nominee of the two policies and as such she was entitled to the proceeds of the policies unless the court directed to the contrary. It was further alleged in the plaint that the claim of the defendant-respondent No. 1 that she was the wedded wife of the deceased Mahanth Shankeranand Nath was incorrect and she was a mere kept and there was no valid marriage. The defendant-respondent No. 1 contested the suit. She claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Mahanth Shankeranand Nath. She further claimed that the deceased Mahanth owned personal assets, moveable and immovable and the Math had no concern with the same. It was also asserted that the instalments of premium in respect of said policies were paid out of his personal funds by the assured and not out of Maths fund. The policies were not taken out for the benefit of the Math but were taken out for his own benefit and the benefit of the nominee. After his marriage with the defendant-respondent No. 1 the assured endorsed the policies in favour of the said defendant-respondent No. 1 and nominated her as the person to whom the amount was to be paid in event of the death of the assured. By the will dated 18-7-1963 executed by the deceased Mahanth, she was entitled to proceeds of the said policies. The suit was also said to be bad under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

3. The trial court framed eleven issues. No finding, however, was returned on issues Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 in view of the statement made by the counsel on behalf of the parties. These issues raised the question of the validity of the alleged marriage of the deceased Mahanth with the defendant-respondent No. 1. In respect of issues Nos. 9 and 10 it was observed by the trial Court that no arguments were addressed by the contesting defendants. They were therefore, treated as not pressed and decided in the negative. Issue No. 11 was as follows:

"To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?"

Issue No. 7 alone was examined on merits and decided by the trial court. The said issue was as follows:

"What was the source from which the moneys were paid by Shankeranand Nath towards the premiums of the policies in dispute ?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document