JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - The respondent firm, The New Zealand Insurance Company, Limited, brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Rangoon, against the applicant, U San Dun, for recovery of Rs. 26-9-0, alleged to be due for premium on a policy of insurance which they had issued to U San Dun on 9th February 1933, insuring against loss or damage by fire or lightning of a house belonging to U San Dun. The company alleged that one Maung Po Kun, who died in August 1933, had approached them on behalf of U San Dun, given them particulars of the property to be insured and obtained a policy for delivery to U San Dun. The company further alleged that no payment of premium had been made. U San Dun replied that he had paid the premium to Maung Po Kun when he received the policy. He claimed that the company was not entitled to require him to pay the premium again. The Court of Small Causes found that Maung Po Kun was not a duly authorized agent of the oompany and had no authority to receive payments on their behalf. Condition 2 of the policy lays down that no payment in respect of any premium shall be deemed to be payment to the company unless a printed form of receipt for the same signed by an official or duly appointed agent of the company shall have been given to the insured.

2. U San Dun was unable to produce such a receipt, or indeed, any receipt. The policy was complete from the date of its issue, even although no premium had been paid. U San Dun was therefore liable to pay the premium for the period during which the policy had been alive. Accordingly the Court granted the plaintiffs a decree as prayed, but did not award costs. U San Dun now applies to this Court in revision. His grounds are that there was no contract of insurance, as no premium had been paid, and alternatively that payment to Maung Po Kun was a valid payment to the company. Ordinarily, unless there is among the conditions of the issue of the policy an express stipulation that the policy shall not become effective until the premium has actually been paid, the policy becomes effective from the date of its signature by the agent of the company. Compare South British Insurance Co., Ltd. v. J.R. Stenson 1928 Bom. 260, which deals with the case where such an express stipulation did occur among the conditions of the insurance. The insertion of the condition in regard to recognition of a receipt for the premium, (already referred to), cannot be deemed to amount to a condition that the policy shall not be effective unless such a receipt exists. It is perhaps curious that this condition should have been inserted among the conditions upon which this policy is granted, but certainly its inclusion amongst the other conditions does not justify an inference that the policy was not intended to be given effect to unless the premium had been paid and a properly printed form of receipt duly signed by an official of the company could be produced. Some attempt was made to argue that, as the policy begins by stating that U San Dun has paid the company the sum of Rs. 42-8-0 only, being the premium, the company cannot now deny that the premium has been received. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Equitable Fire and Accident Office Ltd. v. Ching Wo Hong (1907) A.C. 96, apropos the phrase "having paid" which appears in these forms of policy

it is familiar law that in equity a vendor was never held to be estopped by a statement in the conveyance that the purchase-money had been paid, or even by an endorsed receipt for the money signed by him, so as to exclude the enforcement of the vendor's lien. Their Lordships think that in any case the parties should not be held in equity to be estopped as between themselves from showing that the consideration had not in fact been paid.

3. Now, in the present case, the policy became effective from the date of its issue. It is true that in the case to which reference has just been made it was held that as there was an express stipulation