1. These two appeals arise out of two suits O.S. No. 106 of 1977 and 48 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narasapur. O.S. No. 106 of 1977 is filed for the recovery of Rs. 32,880-62 ps. being the balance of amount due on two Life Insurance Policies, Exs.B - 2 and B - 4, obtained by one Dr. Vegesine Viswanatharaju on his own life and the plaintiff being the widow of the said policy holder. The suit having been decreed, the defendant - Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') filed the appeal A.S. No. 1006 of 1979. The other suit is filed by the Corporation for recovery of Rs. 46,867-01 ps. being the principal and interest due on a registered mortgage deed dated 30-5-1974 executed by late Dr. Vegesine Viswanatharaju, (Dr. Raju for brevity), the husband of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 106 of 1977 who is the first defendant in O.S. No. 48 of 1978. The other defendants in O.S. No. 48 of 1978 are children of Dr. Raju. The suit was dismissed. The suit having been dismissed, against that the Corporation filed A.S. No. 1007 of 1979.

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 106 of 1977 having given credit to the mortgage amount filed the suit for the balance of the amount under the two policies; in view of the contention of the Corporation that the claim is repudiated the Corporation sued for the entire outstanding amount due under the mortgage without giving any credit to the amounts payable under these two policies.

3. The sole question for determination in these two appeals is whether repudiation of the claim made by the Corporation is valid and hence the issue made in O.S. No. 106 of 1977 are relevant for the purpose of both the appeals. The issues are framed in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the trial Court which held that there is no evidence to show that Dr. Raju was bedridden prior to 3-11-1975 or subsequent to 3-11-1975 and there is no evidence of his suppression of his ailment in his personal health statement issued on 7-9-1976 and 9-7-1976 and the repudiation of the claim made by the Corporation is not justified and consequently the plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding amount due after the mortgage amount is deducted.

4. In these appeals by the Corporation, learned counsel Sri J. V. Suryanarayana Rao, argued that these two policies having lapsed for non - payment of premium were revived on 7-9-1976 and 9-9-1976 as per the personal statement of the policy holder Dr. Raju and the revival of the policy constitutes a fresh agreement and the contract of insurance is a contract of uberrimae fidei and admittedly Dr. Raju underwent treatment for heart attack which occurred on 3-11-1975 which is suppressed by him while securing the revival of the policy and consequently the revival of the policy is void and the Court below misdirected itself in thinking that there is no suppression of material facts by the policy holder for the revival and hence the claim by the legal representative of the policy holder is properly repudiated. He further submitted that proper legal approach is whether the contract is void because of suppression of material facts by the policy holder and not whether the repudiation is justified or not.
4A. This is refuted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff stating that the policies were taken by Dr. Raju on 14-9-1973 and 26-9-1973 and any repudiation beyond two years is governed strictly by S.45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the burden is on the Corporation to show that the repudiation is justified on the grounds as envisaged under the said Section and further the revival is strictly governed by the terms of the policy and production of health certificate is sufficient compliance and the Doctor of the Corporation certified that Dr. Raju was keeping good health on the date of revival and there is no evidence to show that Dr. Raju underwent any treatment for heart attack, and consequently the repudiation is wholly unjustified and the judgmen