O.C.J. Appeal No. 43 of 1934 and Suit No. 1060 of 1930. Case: The Great American Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Madanlal Sonulal. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberO.C.J. Appeal No. 43 of 1934 and Suit No. 1060 of 1930
JudgesJohn Beaumont, Kt., C.J. and Rangnekar, J.
IssueIndian Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Section 11
CitationAIR 1935 Bom 353, 1935 (37) BomLR 461, 1935 (5) CompCas 352 (Bom), 158 IndCas 554
Judgement DateMarch 12, 1935
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania, which raises a point of law. The plaintiff is described as Madanlal Sonulal, a minor by his next friend Goverdhandas Mohanlal, and the defendants are The Great American Insurance Co., Ltd., a company incorporated in New York, United States of America, carrying on business in Bombay at Apollo Street, within the Fort of Bombay. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff is the sole surviving coparcener of a joint Hindu family carrying on joint family business at Devalgaum in the name of Surajmal Sonulal, and that the business of the firm is carried on under the superintendence of Goverdhandas Mohanlal, the plaintiff's sister's husband, with whom the plaintiff resides. Then it alleges that the firm in the course of its business effected an insurance against fire with the defendant company on certain cotton bales, and then it is alleged that on the actual date on which the final insurance was effected, which was by means of a cover note issued to the plaintiff's firm, the bales were burnt, and the plaintiff therefore sues to recover loss under the insurance. The defence raised in the written statement is in effect that there was collusion between the agent of the defendant company and the persons who effected the insurance, and that in fact the insurance was effected after the fire, and on that ground the defendants resisted their liability under the insurance. But the defendants did not plead that the plaintiff was a minor, and that on that ground the insurance policy was void. It appears, however, from what is stated in the learned Judge's judgment that when the issues were being discussed, the defendant's counsel, though stating that he did not plead infancy, nevertheless drew the attention of the learned Judge to the fact that on the plaint the plaintiff was a minor, and invited the Court to raise an issue as to whether the contract was void on the ground of the minority of the plaintiff, and the learned Judge accordingly raised such an issue. But at the trial the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to answer the issue, having regard to the fact that minority had not been pleaded. So far as the facts in dispute in the suit were concerned, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the insurance was valid. He negatived the case of fraud and collusion set up by the defendant company, and gave judgment for the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT