P.C.Mallick, J. - (1.) This is a suit to enforce a claim on a fire and burglary insurance policy issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The policy is dated 13-7-1954 and the period covered by the policy is one year from 1-7-1954. The proposal on the basis of which the policy was issued is dated 26-6-1954. The properties insured are (i) furniture, household goods and personal effects valued at Rs. 7,000/- and (ii) trinkets, personal ornaments and gold sovereigns valued at Rs. 23,000/-. All the said properties were lying in the first floor of premises 6, Gonesh Chatterjee Avenue, Sibpore, Howrah, in the occupation of the plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that on 5-8-1954 there was a burglary and considerable ornaments, silver utensils and Benarasi saries covered by the policy were stolen and have not been recovered. Particulars of the goods stolen have been set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The value of the property stolen has been stated to be Rs. 16,889/-, Due notice of the burglary was given to the police and the defendant. So also the claim, form was duly filed as required by the policy. The defendant having failed and neglected to pay the amount of the loss the present suit has been instituted on 25-1-1955.
(2.) The defendant company is disputing liability and has filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff is guilty of false answer to a question in the proposal form as also of suppression of fact. The negative answer to Q. 7(a) in the proposal form is false. Q. 7(a) in the proposal is in the following terms: "Have you ever sustained a loss by fire, burglary, house-breaking and larceny?"
(3.) It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the written statement that previously in the month of Falgun 1355 B.S. there was a burglary in the house of the plaintiff. In this burglary, ornaments, clothes and other valuables worth Rs. 1,650/- belonging to the plaintiff and/or his wife were alleged to have been stolen. This fact has been suppressed when the policy was effected. This non-disclosure of fact is alleged to invalidate the policy. It is further contended that the policy was subject to the condition that all benefits under the policy would be forfeited if the plaintiff made a fraudulent claim. The plaintiff having fraudulently concealed material facts from the defendant as mentioned above, has forfeited all rights under the policy. In paragraph 12 the defendant denies that the plaintiff has suffered loss to the extent mentioned and/or claimed in paragraph 4 of the plaint or at all. On these allegations the liability under the policy has been denied. It is submitted that the suit is not maintainable and should be dismissed with costs.;