-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.845 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO.845 OF 2003 SECOND APPEAL NO.845 OF 2003 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1282 OF 2003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1282 OF 2003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1282 OF 2003 Hind Agency & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Vilas Shivram Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.M.M. Sathe, Advocate, for the Appellants. . Mr.M.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. . Ms.Manisha Pant, Advocate, for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Sathe, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Deshpande and Ms.Pant, learned -: 2 :- counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They filed suit for a declaration and injunction about their ownership over an insurance policy and perpetual injunction against respondent no.2 for restraining it from disbursing the amount under the suit policy. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellants’ Appeal before the lower court is also dismissed by the judgment and order which is impugned in the present Second Appeal. 3. The appellant’s case is that the 1st respondent was the employee in appellant no.1-Firm and in order to extend protection and security to him, the appellants took the suit policy in the name of respondent no.1 from respondent no.2. It was further case that from 1977 to 1992, the quarterly premiums of the suit policy are paid by the appellant no.1-Firm from its own business funds. The respondent no.1 left the job in the year 1992. The policy was also matured in the year 1992. In the circumstances, it was contended that the respondent no.1 outlived the policy and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the amount receivable under the same though the policy -: 3 :- stands in the name of respondent no.1. 4. The lower courts below concurrently held that the appellants are not entitled to the amount of policy and benefit arising thereunder. The appellants admitted that had the respondent no.1 met with any accident, he would have been able to secure the benefit of the policy amount. The respondent no.2, the mother of respondent no.1, is shown as nominee to receive the benefit of the policy after the respondent no.1’s death. The lower appellate court relied upon the extract of account at Exhibit-109 showing that the amount of premium paid by the appellant was being adjusted in the salary account. Moreover the life insurance was assured for a sum of Rs.10,000/- only. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the Second Appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Appeal and the Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Civil Application No.1282 of 2003 does not survive and the same is disposed of. -: 4 :- [RANJIT V. MORE, J.]