RAMCHANDRA RAMVALLABH Vs. GOMTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have tiled this suit as the owners of a vessel called the Fatehkhair to recover from the defendants as underwriters the sum alleged to be duo on a policy of marine insurance effected on the above vessel. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4, who appear and contest the suit, have raised a variety of defences which will be found embodied in the thirteen issues that have been raised in the suit. In most of those defences there is little or no substance and I do not find it necessary to discuss them at any length,

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that the policy was a time policy for two hundred and eighty days and that the ship sailed from Jamnagar in September 1919 with a cargo of rice and proceeded to various ports, finally arriving at Busrah about the beginning of the mou January, 1920. The details of the voyage as far as Busrah are not necessary for the purposes of the present suit. After the voayel left Busrah, it is said, the proceeded to Fao, and after leaving Fao she encountered bad weather and was driven ashore on the coast of the Persian Gulf near a place callel Mastafa. There she became a total loss and the captain and the crew made their way to Linga, whence a telegram was sent to the owners in Bombay, and from Linga they proceeded via Karachi to Jamuagar, the home port of the vessel in question.

(3.) That is in brief the plaintiffs case, and turning to those issues which are of minor importance and which embody defences, which might well have been omitted having regard to the evidence in the case, I will make the following remarks. The first issue is : Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the vessel fatehkhair. As to that, it is sufficient to say that there is the evidence of a partner in the plaintiffs firm that they purchased the vessel. That evidence is supported by extracts from his accounts showing rayments made towards the purchase price, There is the evidence of the captain who swears that the plaintiffs were the owners. There is the evidence of the broker who effected the policy and of the plaintiffs Munim, and there is also the fact that the defendants, the underwriters, accepted the plaintiffs firm as the owners of the vessel when they effected the insurance. There is also other evidence which it is unnecessary to discuss. Against all that there is nothing upon the record to suggest that any other person was the owner of this craft; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the first issue must be answered in the affirmative.