Report No. 66
8.25. Madras cases.-
Following the Madras case1 referred to above, it was again held in 19382 by the same High Court that although for certain purposes, in cases of dispute between the insurer and the insured, it may be necessary to look into the proposal or prospectus or even to construe the prospectus as though it were a part of the policy, the terms of section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act were clear and unambiguous. The expression "policy of insurance" in that section is to be taken in the ordinary meaning of those words, and does not mean, the proposal as well as the company's prospectus. In this case, on the face of the policies themselves, there was no expression of intention that they were for the benefit of he wife or children. In the column in the policy headed "to whom payable", the words used were. "The proposer's assigns or his proving executors or administrators or other legal representatives ". It was held that there was no trust created under section 6 in favour of the wife of the assured.
1. Krishnamurthy v. Anjayya, AIR 1936 Mad 635, supra.
2. Venkatasubramania v. United Planters Association, AIR 1938 Mad 234 (236)