CASE STUDY ON CONSIDERATION

KRISHNA LAL SADHU V/S MT.PROMILA BALA DASSI

In this case the main contention that was urged on behalf of the two defendants who were the appellants is that the money payable under a policy of insurance, being policy no.4667, issued by the Hindustan co-operative insurance society limited, did form part of the assets of the estate of one Behary Lal Sircar deceased and that his widow Pramila Bala Dassi had no rights therein. The case was that one Behari Lal Sircar insured his life on 29th March 1910 for a sum of Rs.500.The policy put forward guaranteed that if the insured paid to the society at their office in Calcutta on 5th day of march 1910 each succeeding year upto and including the year of his death the sum of Rs.21 and 11 annas only or in lieu of any such premium the full number of installments thereof as may be agreed upon, then upto the proof to the satisfaction to the office committee of the society of the death of the insured ,the society will pay to Srimati Pramila Bala Dassi, wife of insured(hereinafter called the nominee)at the head office of the society, Calcutta a preferred sum of Rs.500 only together with such additional sums by way of profits will become payable to after deducting there from the sum or sums, if any, due from him to the society. The assured paid all the premiums due on the policy till his death leaving his widow and three sons. So, as per the policy the plaintiff or the nominee of the policy claimed the amount of the policy from the society and the Insurance society were about to make the payment. But the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 had obtained a decree against the three sons, legal heirs of the insured, that the money due under the policy formed part of the assets of the estate left by the insured and as creditors they had the right to realize the money from the Insurance Society. Thereafter the present suit was brought by the plaintiff to the

court. For the first instance the plaintiffs suit was contested only on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 that the money due under the policy became the property of the plaintiff on the death of the deceased and did not form part of the assets of the estate left by him. Defendant 3 did not challenge the decree of the lower appellate court, which had affirmed the decree of first court, and so defendant 1 and 2 were the appellants. It was argued that the Married Womens Property Act of 1874 applies to this case and that therefore it cannot be questioned that there was a trust in favour of the plaintiff and that the latter was entitled to realize the money in question from the insurance society. It was also been contended that under the Civil Procedure Code the execution creditors were not entitled to attach the amount of the policy in execution of their decrees. The plaintiff was no doubt the nominee of the deceased; but she was no party to the contract between the deceased and Insurance Society. The contract was with the insured and nobody else. The promise is the one which could only take effect upon the husbands death and therefore it must be meant to be enforced then. Apart from any statute the right to sue on a contract would clearly pass to the legal personal representatives of the deceased. It therefore didnt seem that that apart from any statute such a policy would create any trust in favour of the wife. There would have a probability of husband altering the destination of the money at any time and might have dealt with it by will or settlement. So, apart from any statute, no interest would have passed to the wife by reason merely of her being named in the policy. Also, there is nothing in section 60 of Civil Procedure Code preventing the creditors of the sons of the deceased assured from attaching money payable under it. Married Womens Property Act reveals that a Hindu widow claiming assureds money as a nominee is not entitled to it as the act does not apply and there is no trust in her favour by virtue of section

60.Taking into consideration all the above mentioned acts and past referred cases with regards to this ,the appeal succeeded and decision was taken on 22nd February 1928 that allowed the defendants/ creditors to recover the money from the Insurance society as the assets formed the part of the estate left by the deceased and they were entitled to it and the plaintiff had no right to enforce the claim.