PANCHANAN LAHA Vs. SUDHARANI LAHA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to certain insurance money. The instant suit was for a declaration it an assignment, dated January 13, 1958, made by the assured corned, namely, Manindra Nath Laha, deceased, in favour of his fe, who is Respondent No. 1 before us, was obtained by fraud, the influence, coercion and extortion and was not, therefore, ding on the present Appellant, who was a prior nominee of the active insurance money and policy and was the Plaintiff in the suit. ;re was also a prayer for a certain injunction. That prayer, /ever, does not appear to have been very clearly worded or expressed and, as it appears, the learned trial Judge did not ly pay any attention to the same. We also in this appeal are so much concerned with the said prayer.
(2.) As sufficiently indicated hereinbefore, the Plaintiff Appellant claims to be a nominee in respect of the policy, which purported to be the subject-matter of the aforesaid assignment. The Plaintiff was a nephew, of the assured. There is no dispute that there was the aforesaid nomination in his favour in respect of the said policy, but Respondent Defendant No. 1 (who is the widow of the deceased assured) claims title to the insurance money on the strength of the above assignment which, according to her, was made subsequently by the assured. The contest, therefore, arises between the above nomination and assignment and the point to be decided is which of the two should prevail.
(3.) The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that, in fact and in law, the assignment would override the nomination in the circumstances of this case and, in that view, and upon the evidence before him, he refused the Plaintiff the declaration, prayed for in the suit, o. any relief therein. It is against this decree of dismissal that the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.