Judgment :- This suit has been filed for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 24, 70, 000/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% from the date of plaint till realisation and for costs. 2. The plaint allegations are as follows : Plaintiff is a power generating unit. The power generated are carried away through the massive and full length cable with the capacity of 230 KVA from the depth of 170 meter shaft to the distribution unit. In order to attain full perfection and to avoid any defective supply one full legnth cable of 330 to 250 meter is used, which is imported from France at a cost of Rs. 13.00 lakhs. Within the cable snaff (wall) lightings are provided for periodical inspection and maintenance. The entire equipments, cable covers, shaft and the ancilliaries within the Unit II of Kadamparai pump station, Hydro Electric Project Minparai at Coimbatore are insured with the defendant for a total sum of Rs. 14, 56, 73, 000/- under the policy number 500300/ 33/04040/89 dated 30-11-1989 at the premium of Rs. 3, 11, 376/- for the period from 1-12-1989 to 30-11-1990. On 12-6-1990, due to direct falling of the light fittings and conduit pipes from the height with high velocity, the PVC cover and aluminium armour of the cable at the bottom place was ripped off. Due to this the cable got burnt and the entire system broke down, which was due to the external force. Due to the accident, the cables covered under the item No. 12 of Annexure to the policy became useless. On the basis of the claim lodged by the plaintiff with the defendant, the defendant sent his investigating agency viz. M/s. Bhatawadekar Company to inspect the accidental site. They visited the site on 22-6-90 and completed its inspection. The said company requested for certain details vide their letter dt. 23-6-90 from the plaintiff and the plaintiff immediately furnished the same by its letter dt. 13-12-90. The loss was estimated at Rs. 13, 33, 333/-. After giving credit to the scrap value, the claim lodged to the defendant as per letter dated 27-6-1990 is Rs. 13.00 lakhs. As nothing was heard from the defendant, the plaintiff wrote to the authorised agent on 1-2-1991 to enquire about the progress towards the claim. By a letter dt. 13-12-90. The loss was estimated at Rs. 13, 33, 333/-. After giving credit to the scrap value, the claim lodged to the defendant as per letter dated 27-6-1990 is Rs. 13.00 lakhs. As nothing was heard from the defendant, the plaintiff wrote to the authorised agent on 1-2-1991 to enquire about the progress towards the claim. By a letter dt. 12-2-91 the agency had informed that they have submitted a report to the defendant already. The defendant vide letter dt. 5-2-1991 informed the plaintiff that they have refused the claim as unacceptable. The defendant misconstrued the terms of the policy relating to exclusion class and stick to the stand adamently. The plaintiff requested the defendant to furnish the survey report of its agency. But the defendant sent a letter dated 10-8-92 stating that the same is confidential one. The reason adduced by the defendant for not honouring the commitment is untenable, unreasonable and unjustified. The accident occurred due to external and outside force. Hence the same cannot be construed as the short circuiting within the particular electrical machine. The outside device caused damage to the cable. The defendant without appreciating the purpose for which the equipments are insured and on the wrong interpretation of the clauses in the policy declined to honour their commitment, which caused loss to the plaintiff and delayed the process to rest the system. The reason given by the defendant could be possible, only if there were joints in the cable or there was connection of any other cables. The cable was one full length and there are no joints to allow arcing. The short circuiting is caused only by passing into contact of two wires. This is also not possible as the cable is fully insulated. The suit claim covers only actual amount spent by the plaintiff in replacing the damaged cables. Under the terms of the policy, the insurer has undertaken to bear such losses. The defendant is liable to reimburse the said loss under the policy of insurance. Hence the present suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit claim is barred by limitation and that the communication dated 10-8-82 by the defendant is only a reiteration of their denial of liability or disclaimer of liability as set out in their letter dated 5-2-1991. Hence the present suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit claim is barred by limitation and that the communication dated 10-8-82 by the defendant is only a reiteration of their denial of liability or disclaimer of liability as set out in their letter dated 5-2-1991. In view of the admission made by the plaintiff that the defendant disclaimed liability as early as 5-2-91, any suit as against the defendant ought to have been filed within three years from the date of disclaimer as per the law of limitation. The present suit instituted and presented before this Court on 8-8-1995 is clearly barred by law of limitation. The occurrence resulting in the claim in question took place on 12-6-1990. As per condition No. 6(ii) of the policy, the action, if any, should have been initiated before 12-6-1991, in the absence of any disclaimer within the said period of 12 months from the date of occurence. The defendant disclaimed their liability on 5-2-91. As per condition No. 6(ii) of the Policy, the action should have been initiated by the plaintiff on or before 6-2-1992. No right was available to the palintiff after 5-2-92. The plaint filed in this Court is clearly hit by condition No. 6(ii) of the relevant fire policy. Since the plaintiff initiated action beyond the period of three years from the date of disclaimer, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant is obliged to statutorily appoint a licensed independent surveyor under the Insurance Act and Rules thereunder to investigate any claim in excess of Rs. 20000/- and after obtaining the report on such an independent surveyor alone, a claim under a policy of insurance can be settled. M/s. Bhatwadekar and Co. appointed by the defendant as surveyor had issued their report dated 5-7-90. The finding given in the said report was made after due investigation and inspection, carried out at the site. The attempt made by the plaintiff to attribute the cause as one which is external and therefore the policy exclusion is not applicable is patently erroneous and illegal. Exclusion No. G is not making any definition between any internal or external cause. On the order hand it will be attracted whatever might be the cause including lightning. The claim under the policy on merits is not payable as per exclusion "G" of the fire policy in question. Exclusion No. G is not making any definition between any internal or external cause. On the order hand it will be attracted whatever might be the cause including lightning. The claim under the policy on merits is not payable as per exclusion "G" of the fire policy in question. The report of the surveyor is a privileged one which as per the custom of the industry is not to be released to the insured as it is purely confidential and obtained as per the statutory pre-requisite prescribed under the Insurance Act. There was no delay on the part of the defendant in investigating the claim. No amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and the suit claim is excessive, inflated and illegal. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. No interest is payable much less at the rate at which interest is claimed. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. The following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 24, 70, 000/- towards the principal and interest from 26-6-1990 to the date of the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% as claimed in the plaint? (3) Whether the plaintiff's right to sue has extinguished as per the terms and conditions of the policy? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. Issues 1 to 5 :- The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 24, 70, 000/- being the principal and interest from 26-6-1990 till the date of plaint and for a direction to the defendant to pay the interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation. 6. The Executive Engineer in Kadampari Power House viz. G. Kumar was examined as P.W. 1. He would depose that they used the let out water to pump it to a higher level and re-use it for generation of power. The power so generated is carried through massive power cables of 230 KV through vertical caves or shaft which is 170 meters in height. To attain full capacity and achieve perfection they use full length cables, which were imported from France. The cost of the said cables was Rs. 13, 33, 000/- and above. The power so generated is carried through massive power cables of 230 KV through vertical caves or shaft which is 170 meters in height. To attain full capacity and achieve perfection they use full length cables, which were imported from France. The cost of the said cables was Rs. 13, 33, 000/- and above. The cables are taken to the ground level through hole called cable shaft with a diameter of 10 feet. They also have light fittings and a winch to travel from top to bottom to enable them to have periodical inspection. Ex. P1 is the xerox copy of the policy taken from the defendant for the period from 1-12-89 to 30-11-90 for a sum of Rs. 14, 56, 73, 000/- in respect of the cables, and valuable machines. On 12-6-1990 when the machines were functioning the light fittings and conduit pipe provided for illumination in the shaft directly fell down and hit the cables and punctured the cables and also burnt the same and the machine broke down. Because the concrete pipes fell down and then pinned and punctured the PVC cover of the cables, the aluminium armour had a contract with the live conductor. The reason for the break down is the external force which was due to the falling down of the pipe, and it was not due to the internal fault. The plaintiff informed their superiors and also the defendant. The defendant sent their surveyor viz. Bhatawadekar and Co. for inspection. Ex. P2 is the letter from the surveyor to the plaitiff asking for details. The reply dated 13-12-90 by the plaintiff to the surveyor furnishing the details is marked as Ex. P3. After giving credit to the value of scraps, the extent of the damage comes to Rs. 13.00 lakhs. The plaintiff made a claim from the defendant vide its letter dated 26-6-90 marked as Ex. P4. Ex. P5 is the claim form submitted by them. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant requesting them to give the survey report. Ex. P6 is the letter dated 5-2-91 from the defendant rejecting the claim made by the plaintiff. Ex. P7 is the letter dated 1-2-91 written by the plaintiff to the surveyor, requesting them to furnish the survey report. The reply from the surveyor dated 12-2-91 is marked as Ex. P8. Ex. P6 is the letter dated 5-2-91 from the defendant rejecting the claim made by the plaintiff. Ex. P7 is the letter dated 1-2-91 written by the plaintiff to the surveyor, requesting them to furnish the survey report. The reply from the surveyor dated 12-2-91 is marked as Ex. P8. The letter dated 10-8-92 from the defendant extracting the survey report and confirmng the earlier rejection of the claim is marked as Ex. P9. The defendant rejected the claim only on 10-8-92 and not on 5-2-91. The cables used in the instant case are not very good quality and the other cables are still functioning correctly even after several years. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant has made an endorsement stating that there is no oral evidence for the defendant. 8. Arguing for the plaintiff Electricity Board, the learned counsel would submit that the power house at Kadamparai, Coimbatore District is a unique underground power house first of its kind in India, wherein the let out water is pumped to a higher level and re-used for generation of power and the power so generated is carried through massive power cables of 230 KVS through vertical caves or shaft and in order to attain the full capacity and to achieve the perfection, full length cables are used; that in view of the available machineries and cables, the Electricity Board insured the same with the defendant and had taken a policy for the period from 1-12-89 to 30-12-90 for a sum of Rs. 14, 73, 000/- under Ex. P1 that on 12-6-1990 when the machines are functioning, the light fittings, in the conduit pipes provided for the illumination in the shaft directly fell down, hit the cables and punctured them and also burnt the same and machines broke down and in that incident, the concrete pipes which fell down pinned and punctured the PVC cover of the cable and the aluminium armour, which had a contact with the live conductor and in that process, the said break down had happened due to the external force; that the break down was not due to any internal fault; that the full length cables valued at Rs. 13.00 lakhs and imorted from France, were damaged; that the same is one of the items covered under Ex. 13.00 lakhs and imorted from France, were damaged; that the same is one of the items covered under Ex. P1 policy; that on information to the superiors, it was immediately brought to the notice of the defendant insurance company; that the defendant deputed its surveyor M/s. Bhatawadekar and Co. who made an inspection and submitted its report to the defendant; that at the time of the inspection the surveyor asked for many details which were supplied by the plaintiff; that after the survey was over, the plaintiff made a claim under Exs. P4 and P5; that after making the claim, the plaintiff asked for a copy of the survey report from the surveyor, which he declined to furnish stating that it was a privileged document; that while so the plaintiff to its shock received a reply from the defendant insurance company rejecting their claim stating that the damage and loss was outside the purview of the policy; that then again a communication was addressed to the defendant explaining the circumstances which resulted in its reply on 10-8-92 confirming the earlier rejection of their claim; that the defendant without any appreciation of the purpose for which the same was insured and on the wrong interpretation of the clauses in Ex. P1 policy has declined to honour their commitment; that the reason adduced by the defendant that the damage of the cables was due to short circuit which fall under the excluded clause and hence not liable to answer has to be rtejected since the cable was in full length and there was no chance to allow the arcing and the short circuiting was caused only by passing into the contact of two live wires and hence it was not also possible as the cable was fully insulated and thus it would be clear that the reason for the break down was the external force, which was due to the falling down of the pipes and hence the reasons adduced by the defendant's side to negative the claim of the plaintiff are untenable and unsustainable and on those reasons the defendant should not be allowed to escape from its liability under the policy to make good the loss. Added further the learned counsel that the contention of the defendant' side that the suit is barred by limitation is neither correct not sound; that originally the claim was made under Exs. Added further the learned counsel that the contention of the defendant' side that the suit is barred by limitation is neither correct not sound; that originally the claim was made under Exs. P4 and P5 on 26-6-90; that it is true that the defendant replied under Ex. P6 on 5-2-91 denying the claim; that after the same, the plaintiff made its request to the surveyor to furnish the survey report, who replied stating that he could not furnish the same since it was a privileged document; that again the plaintiff pursued its claim, which resulted in a reply dated 10-8-92 wherein the defendant made a final rejection of the plaintiff's claim; that the instant suit has been filed within three years from the date of such rejection on 10-8-92 and hence the suit is well within time and hence the same has got to be decreed as prayed for. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant insurance company with vigour and vehemence opposed all the contentions put forth by the plaintiff's side. He would submit that the plaintiff's claim is devoid of merits and apart from that, it is barred by limitation also; that in respect of the fire accident that took place on 12-6-1990, the defendant appointed M/s. Bhatawadekar and Co. to survey the loss in question without prejudice to the legal rights and the surveyor in their survey report have clearly pointed out that the damage to power cables was mainly due to arcing and short circuiting that has taken place due to the fall of GI conduit pipes with high velocity rupturing the PVC outer cover and the aluminium armour and thereby coming in contact with the live aluminium conductor; that P.W. 1, the present Executive Engineer in Kadamparai Power House has categorically deposed that the damage of the cables occurred due to the falling of the pipes which resulted in short circuiting and whenever there was such a short circuiting, there would be heavy noise and explosion. Pointing to the exclusion clause No. 'G' in Ex. Pointing to the exclusion clause No. 'G' in Ex. P1 policy, the learned counsel would submit that the defendant is not liable to answer the claim of the plaintiff since the damage has occasioned by short circuiting and arcing in the instant case; The learned counsel would further submit that the contention of the plaintiff's side that the reason for the break down was due to external force which was due to the falling down of the pipe and not because of any internal fault and hence the defendant is liable cannot be countenanced, since the said exclusion clause does not make any difference between any internal or external cause, but on the contrary it will be attracted whatever might be the cause including lightning and hence the plaintiff has made an attempt to recover the loss which was not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy as found under Ex. P1, admittedly governing the contract of insurance and in view of the application of the fire policy in question, the plaintiff's claim has got to be rejected. Arguing on the point of limitation, the learned counsel would submit that the rights and obligations of the parties are directly governed by the terms and conditions attached to Ex. P1, admittedly governing the contract of insurance and in view of the application of the fire policy in question, the plaintiff's claim has got to be rejected. Arguing on the point of limitation, the learned counsel would submit that the rights and obligations of the parties are directly governed by the terms and conditions attached to Ex. P1 policy of insurance; that it is clearly indicated therein that the right if any the plaintiff had, shall be extinguished within 12 months from the happening of the loss; that admittedly the fire accident in question took place on 12-6-90 and thus the action if any should have been initiated before 12-6-91 in the absence of any disclaimer within the said period of 12 months from the date of occurrence; that in the instant case a claim was made by the plaintiff and it was disclaimed by the defendant by a letter dated 5-2-91 which fact is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint and hence action if any should have been initiated on or before 6-3-92 and therefore as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, there was an extinction of liability and thus no right is available to the plaintiff after 5-2-92 which is capable of being enforced in an action against the defendant; that even as per the general law of limitation, the plaintiff should have filed the suit within 3 years from the date of denial of the claim; that in the instant case, it is admitted by the plaintiff that the claim was refused by the defendant on 5-2-91 and hence the suit should have been filed within 3 years therefrom, but the suit has been filed only in August, 1995 and even assuming the general law of limitation is applicable to the present facts of the case, the suit is hit by law of limitation and hence the plaintiff's suit has got to be rejected both on merits and as one barred by limitation. 10. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for a decree for a sum of Rs. 10. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for a decree for a sum of Rs. 24.70 lakhs along with intetrest from 26-6-1990 alleging that the plaintiff is entitled for the same in respect of the actual value of the damage and loss sustained by the plaintiff and the defendant insurance company is liable to pay the same under the terms of the insurance policy entered into between the parties. 11. As narrated above, the facts admitted by both sides can be stated as follows : The plaintiff Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has set up the Kadamparai Power Generating Unit at Coimbatore District, which is designed in such a way that the power generated are carried away throuh the massive and full length cable with the capacity of 230 KVA from the depth of 170 meter shaft to the distribution unit. The entire equipments, cable covers, shaft and the ancillaries within the Unit II of Kadamparai Pump Station, Hydro Electric Project Minparai at Coimbatore was insured with the defendant insurance company for a total sum of Rs. 14, 56, 73, 000/- under Ex. P1 Policy bearing No. 500300/33/04040/89 dated 30-11-1989 at the premium of Rs. 3, 11, 376/-. The said policy covers the period from 1-12-1989 to 30-11-1990 and it was executed at Madras. During the currency of the policy, on 12-6-1990 while the unit was functioning, due to the direct falling of the light fittings and conduit pipes from the height with high velocity, the PVC cover and the aluminium armour of the cable at the bottom place was ripped off and due to this contact with the aluminium conductor, the cable got burnt and the entire system broke down. The 230 KVA cables are one among the items of insurance coverage under Ex. P1 policy. Due to the said accident, the said cables became useless. The same was informed to the defendant insurance company. The defendant deputed its Surveyor M/s. Bhatawadekar and Co., who made inspection of the power unit. On request by the said surveyor under Ex. P2 letter, the plaintiff issued Ex. P3 reply on 30-12-1990 furnishing all the details called for. After the investigation by the surveyor, the plaintiff made a claim under Ex. P4 letter dated 26-6-1990 to the defendant and Ex. P5 is the claim form submitted therefore. On 5-2-1991, the defendant sent a communication to the plaintiff refusing the claim made above. P2 letter, the plaintiff issued Ex. P3 reply on 30-12-1990 furnishing all the details called for. After the investigation by the surveyor, the plaintiff made a claim under Ex. P4 letter dated 26-6-1990 to the defendant and Ex. P5 is the claim form submitted therefore. On 5-2-1991, the defendant sent a communication to the plaintiff refusing the claim made above. The plaintiff made a request to the surveyor by a letter under Ex. P7 on 1-2-1991 to furnish the survey report. The surveyor on receipt of the said letter gave a reply under Ex. P8 dated 12-2-1991 declining to furnish the survey report. The defendant by a communication dated 10-8-1992 confirmed its earlier rejection of the claim made by the plaintiff and extracted the survey report therein. The said letter is marked as Ex. P9. At that stage the plaintiff has come forward with the suit stating that though the extent of the damage was Rs. 13, 33, 333/- the suit has been filed only to Rs. 13.00 lakhs after giving credit to the value of the scraps. 12. This civil action is brought forth claiming Rs. 13.00 lakhs towards the loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of the damage caused to the cables during the fire accident that took place on 12-6-1990 and alleging that the same is covered under Ex. P1 insurance policy which was subsisting that day. The defence put forth by the insurance company is of two fold. Firstly the defendant is not liable to make good the loss since the same was not covered under Ex. P1 policy and secondly the suit claim is barred by limitation. Concededly on 12-6-1990 when the machines were functioning in the said Kadamparai Unit, the light fittings and the conduit pipes provided for illumination in the shoft fell down and hit the cables and punctured the cables and also burnt the same and the machines also broke down and since the concrete pipes fell down they pinned and punctured the PVC cover of the cable and the aluminium armour of the cable. On information to the defendant, the surveyor M/s. Bhatawadekar and Co. was deputed, who made inspection of the plant and has given a report. At this juncture it has to be pointed out that though it is contended by the plaintiff that the extent of the damage was Rs. On information to the defendant, the surveyor M/s. Bhatawadekar and Co. was deputed, who made inspection of the plant and has given a report. At this juncture it has to be pointed out that though it is contended by the plaintiff that the extent of the damage was Rs. 13, 33, 333/- and after giving credit to the value of the scraps, it comes to Rs. 13.00 lakhs, no material is placed before the Court to show the value of the damage caused. On rejection of the claim made by the plaintiff, by the insurance company, this suit has been filed. It is contended by the plaintiff's side that the reason for the break down was the external force which was due to the falling down of the pipe and the same was not due to any internal fault. Refuting the contention, it is submitted by the defendant's side that the fire accident has taken place wholly due to the short circuit and that even assuming that it was only by external force and not by the internal fault, the insurance company is not liable to pay, since the policy exclusion clause is applicable and did not make any difference between any internal or external cause. 13. It is admitted that the cables that were damaged on the said date were covered under Ex. P1 insurance policy. Normally the short circuit can take place when two live conductors come into contact with each other or when a live conductor comes into contact with earth and when the short circuit occurs, it results in a fire which is called arcing. From the evidence of PW 1 it could be seen that when the heavy conductor fell on the cable from the great height, the cover of the cable got pinned, punctured and the aluminium armour come into contact with the conduit pipes which resulted in the short circuit. From the candid admission made by P.W. 1, it is seen that the damage of the cable in question occurred due to the falling of the pipes which resulted in the short circuit and due to the happening of the short circuit, there is heavy noise and explosion and thus it would be clear that the loss has occurred due to the short circuit. The contention of the plaintiff's side that the reason for the break down was due to the external force and not due to any internal fault cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the same was due to any internal fault, it makes no difference, in view of the specific clause of exclusion found in Ex. P1 policy. It would be more advantageous to reproduce clause "g" in Ex. P1 policy which runs as follows : "(g) Loss of or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric house-hold or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installations, arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning included), provided that this exemption shall only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portion of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines apparatus, fixture, fittings or portion of the electrical instalation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up....." A very reading of the above clause would make it clear that the defendant can well avail the said exclusion clause when the loss or damage arises from or occasioned by a short circuiting. It has to be pointed out here that the surveyor who made the inspection had given a report stating that the damage to the power cables was mainly due to arcing and short circuiting, which fact is admitted by P.W. 1. A rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, the abovestated clause does not make any difference between any internal or external force, but it would attract whatever might be the cause for short circuiting and arcing. Under the stated circumstances, the defendant cannot be held responsible and liable to answer the suit claim, in view of the fact that the damage of the cables has occurred only due to the falling of the pipes, which resuted in short circuit. 14. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 1 was not present during the relevant time when the fire accident took place and that Mr. Abdul Hameed who was the then Superintending Engineer of the Plant has not been examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not tendered any explanation for the non-examination of the said witness. 14. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 1 was not present during the relevant time when the fire accident took place and that Mr. Abdul Hameed who was the then Superintending Engineer of the Plant has not been examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not tendered any explanation for the non-examination of the said witness. Thus from the available evidence that the damage of the cables has occurred as a direct consequence of the falling of the pipes which resulted in short circuit and in view of the exclusion clause available under Clause 'g' in Ex. P1 stated supra, the defendant cannot be made liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff-Electricity Board. 15. Apart from the above, the Court has to necessarily agree with the contention of the defendant's side that the suit is hit by law of limitation. Admittedly for the loss sustained by the plaintiff on the incident that took place on 12-6-1990, a claim was made under Exs. P4 and P5 dated 26-6-1990. The defendant by a communication dated 5-2-1991 had made it clear that the insurance policy under Ex. P1 excluded the loss or damage which occasioned by short circuiting or arcing and hence the claim made by the plaintiff was beyond the purview of the policy and therefore, it could not be entertained. By the said communication, the defendant had disclaimed the liability and rejected the plaintiff's claim. Under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date when the claim on the policy is denied. In view of the same, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of the disclaimer viz. 5-2-1991, but the suit has been filed only on 7-8-1995, which is clearly beyond the prescribed period under the law of limitation and hence without any hesitation, it has to be held that the suit is also barred by limitation. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. All the above issues are answered accordingly. 16. In the result, this suit is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Suit dismissed.