- (1.)This is a suit by the appellant upon two policies of life insurance on the life of his mother Bai Kesar, widow of Kalidas Tejaji, to recover the assurance moneys payable under the said policies as the assignee thereof.
(2.)The defendants raised several pleas, the most material of which are those contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written statement. The plea in paragraph 6 is in these terms:
The defendants say that the said proposal and declaration and information purporting to be signed by the said Bai Kesar was not signed by her nor was the person produced if at all, before the medical examiner the same individual as the said Bai Kesar. The defendants therefore submit that a fraud was perpetrated on the said company and that the contract of assurance is null and void, and that the defendants are not bound and liable to pay the moneys in respect of or under the said contract of assurance.

It will be seen that sufficient particulars of the alleged fraud were here not given. But the defendants' case is that Bai Kesar did not sign the proposal and the declaration and that on material occasions she was represented by a woman by name Kesar Anraj. The plea in paragraph 7 is to the effect that in the proposal and declaration untrue statements and misrepresentations were made, namely :(a) that Bai Kesar ordinarily enjoyed good health; (b) that she had not been ill; (c) that she had not suffered from disease or illness ; (d) that she had no medical attendant; (e) statement as to age is untrue ; and (f) that prior to the date of the proposal she was suffering from asthma and other ailments and had been treated for the same. The plea as to the statement in; (b) and (c) was disposed of by the lower Court and need not here be referred to specifically. The plea as to the statement in (d) about the medical attendant as also that she suffered from ailments other than asthma in (f) have been now given up by the learned Counsel of the respondents.

(3.)The First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad accepted the defendants' case in its entirety and dismissed the suit, and hence this appeal. There is no dispute that all things had happened which were necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover. His title was disputed in the written statement but has been held established by the Judge and not disputed before us. The question as to want of jurisdiction was answered against the defendants, and that finding is not challenged.
;