The mere receipt of repudiation letters does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action arises outside the court's jurisdiction.

1. One Shiv Lal Chopra insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and took out three policies particulars whereof are as under :
Policy No. Date Place Amount 
26988057 Dec. 1966 Kanpur 20,000,00 
27061288 May 1967 Kanpur 20,000,00 
8108987 Dec. 1967 Varanasi 25,000,00 

2. Shiv Lal died on September 20, 1968, at Sopar in Bikar. His widow demanded the insurance money from the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corporation by their three letters dated February 20, 1970, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that Shiv Lal was suffering from heart aliment and consulted medical men and took treatment from them and did not disclose these facts in his statement and instead gave false answers. This was their reply with regard to two policies dated May, 1967 and December, 1967 which were taken at Kanpur and Varanasi. As regards the third policy taken out in December, 1966, from Kanpur the Corporation said that nothing was payable as policy had lapsed by non - payment of the yearly premium.

3. Shiv Lal's widow Shrimati Kamla Chopra has instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs.88,400/-, against the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Delhi.

4. The Corporation in its written statement has taken the preliminary objection that the suit is not triable at Delhi. On March 14, 1972, the following preliminary issue was struck:
"Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?"

5. The parties have not led any evidence. Only the above three letters dated February 20, 1970, have been admitted by the Corporation. All the three are letters of repudiation of the plaintiff's claim. These letters were issued from the Central Zonal Office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Kanpur. In the plaint it was admitted that the two Policies were issued from Kanpur and the third policy was issued at Varanasi. In paragraph 17 it was said:
"Because parties to the suit reside and work for gain at Delhi where defendant No. 1 - Corporation has its zonal / divisional / regional / branch offices and the claim in suit is payable and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit"

6. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff has said that defendant No. 1 is a statutory corporation with its central office at Bombay, Northern Zonal / Divisional / Regional Office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. It has also been said that the Corporation has Zonal / Divisional / Regional / Branch Office throughout India.

7. In the written statement the Corporation has denied that any cause of action arose at Delhi. It is said that the two insurance policies in suit were issued from Kanpur Office and the third insurance policy was issued from Varanasi and the cause of action arose at Kanpur and Varanasi where the contracts of insurance were entered into. It was denied that the payment was to be made at Delhi. Under the terms of the insurance policies the amount was payable at Kanpur in respect of the two policies and in respect of the third policy at Varanasi. It was also alleged that the central office of the Corporation is at Bombay and the mere fact that the Northern Zonal Office of the Corporation is in Delhi will not confer jurisdiction on this Court to try the suit.

8. In the replication the plaintiff has reiterated that the zonal office of the Corporation being at New Delhi and the claim under the policies being payable at New Delhi this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. It was not disputed that the central office of the Corporation is at Bombay.

9. Now the question is - Has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit?

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that this Court has jurisdiction on two