REWANT Vs. DIVNL MANAGER L I C NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were minors at the time when this petition was filed on 9-8-1978, seek a declaration "that the respondents are under a legal obligation, subject to the terms of the relevant contract between them and the assured, to pay surrender value even to a Hindu minor absolute assignee of the contract, acting through his natural or legal guardian "and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith to the petitioners, acting through the father and natural or legal guardian, surrender value of all three policies.

(2.) The facts leading to the present writ-petition, briefly stated, are as follows. The petitioners were born on 20-3-1961, 4-10-1963 and 13-12-1965 respectively. Their father, who is admittedly their natural guardian had obtained 17 policies of life insurance from the 2nd respondent. On the advice given by an insurance agent, he decided to surrender five of them and to invest the surrender value in fixed deposits. Out of these five policies, he assigned two policies to his wife under an irrevocable deed of assignment dated 8-10-1972 which was acknowledged by the respondent corporation under its letter dated 13-1-1973. The guardians wife, who is the mother of the petitioners, irrevocably assigned these two polices to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 by making an endorsement on them on 19-4-1976 which also has been accepted by the respondent corporation under its letter dated 23-4-1976. The petitioner's mother ignoring the irrevocable assignment in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, wrote to the respondent corporation on 1-4-1978 of her desire to avail of the surrender value of the said two policies. She was informed that it was not possible for anyone else except the assignees to surrender the policies and the minors could do so on their attaining majority. This gave rise to certain correspondence between the father and the mother of the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent corporation on the other. Ultimately, the father of the petitioners, in his capacity as their natural guardian requested the respondent corporation to pay him the surrender value of the policies. The respondent corporation, by its letter dated 26-4-1978 informed the guardian that it would not be open to him to surrender the policies so long as the assignees were minors and not in a position to give valid discharge. The respondent corporation, however, further said that it was prepared to pay the surrender value to the guardian if he obtained and forwarded to it a guardianship certificate from a competent Court of law under the Guardians and Wards Act specifically empowering him to surrender the policies. The guardian, by his letter dated 27-4-1978, demurred from this position and maintained that he was in his capacity as a legal guardian entitled to surrender the two policies and obtain the surrender value from the respondent corporation. However, by its letter dated 9-6-1978, the respondent maintained its stand taken earlier. It is in this context that the present writ petition has been filed by the three petitioners for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) During the pendency of the petition and by now, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have attained majority. It is not clear why petitioner No. 1 has been joined in this petition since this petition concerns the two policies which are alleged to have been assigned to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 only. During the pendency of this petition, the respondents, under C.A. No. 913 of 1981 filed on 23-1-1981, sought permission of this Court to deposit in this Court the surrender value due on the said two policies within a reasonable time and thereafter for investment in the aforesaid securities. This Court by its order made on the same day, permitted the respondents to invest and deposit the amount due under the said policies into fixed deposits for a period of 61 months in a nationalised bank in the name of minor assignees. It would, therefore, appear that the surrender value of the said two policies now stands invested in the fixed deposits under the orders of the Court. We are told that this order was passed after hearing both the counsel.