The case at hand takes place on
11th Oct, 1966 in
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
Janki Nath Bhat, J.
For Appellant: J.L. Chowdhury
For Respondents/Defendant: S.N. Dar
Chronology of Events
1. The plaintiff got the contents in his shop insured with the defendant company for one year
for a sum of Rs. 30,000. A policy was issued in his favour by the defendant company. The plaintiff's shop caught
fire on the night.
2. Next morning he came on the scene and found that the shop had been taken possession by
the local officials of the defendant company and the police. It was sealed. The plaintiff gave tentative
information of this fire to the defendant company.
3.The plaintiff's books were seized by the police. The police inquired into the matter and declared
the fire accidental Lateron a Surveyor was deputed by the defendant company who made a report.
4.The shop remained in possession of the defendant company when on another the night a fire
broke out which destroyed the remaining articles in the shop. There were some un-insured goods and
the total claim of the plaintiff thus comes to Rs. 27,904.81.
8th June 1960
The plaintiff got the contents of his shop
insured with the defendant company
for one year.
4/5th February 1961
The plaintiff's shop caught fire
in the night
3rd Nov 1961
The shop remained in possession of the
defendant company when another fire broke out
which destroyed the remaining articles.
According to the plaintiff, on
the basis of the insurance
effected on his goods, the
defendant company was
liable to make good the
loss to him, but did not
As the keys of the shop
remained with the defendant
up to 3rd Nov 1961, the
defendant was further
liable for the loss of
uninsured goods valuing
The plaintiff therefore claimed a
decree for the mentioned
amount,i.e. Rs. 27904.81.
In defence the defendant company has
taken a number of pleas, they are that the
defendant has not been properly sued;
the plaint is not properly verified and the suit
is time-barred.All the benefits under the policy
and the suit stand forfeited
The claim is fraudulent
A false declaration has been
made in support of the claim
The plaintiff has not complied
with the terms and conditions of
The plaintiff is not entitled to
any relief as the suit was not
commenced within three months
after the rejection of his claim by
the defendant company
It is a well-established principle that courts will not entertain an action for money had and received where,
in order to succeed; the plaintiff has to prove his own fraud. It was held that judged by the standards laid down
in section 17 Contract Act, the policy holder was guilty of a fraudulent suppression of material facts when
he made his statements. In the circumstances of the case it was held that no advantage could be taken of the
Explanation to section 19 of the Contract Act.
From the finding on the issues recorded above, the plaintiff's suit has to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed, but in view of the hardship caused to the plaintiff and his suit failing on a technical
point, the parties are left to bear their own costs.