- (1.)The question of law arising for decision in this appeal is an interesting one and I am told that that question is not covered by any decision of this court or any other High Court.
(2.)The material facts in this case are few and they lie within a very narrow compass : One B.S.Revannaiah was an insurance agent working under the appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During his lifetime, he appears to have canvassed a good deal of business in respect of which he was entitled to commission under section 44(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act". He died on May 11, 1954, leaving behind him his widow and two minor daughters. Admittedly he had no other preferential heirs. One of his minor daughters died very soon after his death. His widow also dies on July 3, 1955. the plaintiff respondent claims to be the heir of Revannaiah and as such she has laid claim for the payment of the commission that would have been payable to Revannaiah had here been alive. she has made this claim under sub-section (2) of section 44 of the Act. the Insurance Corporation is resisting her claim. Its case is that she is not a "heir" within the meaning of that expression in sub-section 92) of section 44 of the Act. that contention has been repelled by both the courts below. But the same is pressed before me for acceptance.
(3.)The term "heir" found in section 44(2) of the Act is not defined in the Act. The courts below have come to the conclusion that that term has not been used in any technical sense, but the same has been used in a popular sense. Admittedly, on the date of the suit, the nearest heir of Revannaiah was the plaintiff and that being so, the courts below have held that she is entitled to the relief sought.