Judgment V. K. Bali, J. 1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of four connected Regular First Appeal Nos.645, 644, 646 of 1982 and 1382 of 1979, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from Regular First Appeal no.645 of 1982. 2. The appeal herein has been filed by life Insurance Corporation of India arrayed as a defendant in the original lis brought about by Narinder Kaur Batra, Harmeet singh Batra and Rajinder Singh Batra, widow and minor sons of Inderjit Singh batra respectively, for recovery of amount for which Inderjit Singh Batra was insured during his lifetime. Naturally, inasmuch as, the suit was brought about after the demise of Inderjit Singh Batra, who had taken four policies during his lifetime, it resulted in filing of four separate suits. It is pleaded in the plaint filed by widow and minor sons of Inderjit Singh Batra (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) that Inderjit Singh Batra had got himself insured with appellant Life insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) vide policies duly detailed in the plaint. The plaintiffs were legal heirs of Inderjit Singh Batra, who died on 27.7.1973. These policies were kept alive by Inderjit Singh Batra during his lifetime and he continued paying respective premium in respect of the policies. On the death of the assured, plaintiff No.1, who was a nominee of Inderjit singh Batra became entitled to the amount of the policies and also to the profits declared by the defendant Corporation in respect of the policies in dispute. Cause of action arose to the plaintiffs on 27.7.1973 on the demise of the assured, and cause of action to file suit accrued on 6.12.1975, when defendant Corporation refused to entertain the claim lodged by plaintiffs despite notice having been served upon them. 3. These four suits filed by the plaintiffs, as referred to above, were contested primarily on the ground that Inderjit Singh batra prior to his taking four policies, subject matter of suit, had taken four other policies as well and the factum of these policies was not disclosed by him in the policies in question, i. e. , regarding which the plaintiffs have lodged a claim after his demise. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file these suits? OPP (2) Whether the disputed policies were obtained fraudulently by Inderjit Singh batra by suppressing material facts? opd (3) Whether the contracts of insurance in all these cases were void ab initio? opd (4) Whether suits are properly valued for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction? OPD (5) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these suits? opd (6) Whether the suits are maintainable in the present form? OPD (7) Relief. 4. After resultant trial, all the four suits were decreed. Thus, the present four appeals. 5. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, the learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently contends that non-disclosure of the earlier four policies and particularly the 4th one wherein the assured was asked to part with extra premium on account of his being overweight having not been disclosed, the defendant Corporation was well within its rights to repudiate the claim of the plaintiffs. This is the precise question, which was debated before the courts below and the learned Sub Judge while dealing with pivotal issue, as mentioned above, after a detailed discussion dealing with all relevant facts and law came to conclusion, that non-disclosure was not of material fact. He further observed on the basis of evidence that at the time Inderjit Singh Batra got himself insured, vide four policies in question, he was not overweight or in any case his weight had since been reduced. Number of judgments of Apex Court and high Courts were relied upon by learned subordinate Judge to come to the finding that unless there is suppression of material fact which may in the circumstances, deter the defendant Corporation to enter into contract, such non-disclosure would not be material. The learned Sub Judge also observed that in any case, contract had to be repudiated within the period of two years from the date of insurance. Insofar as the finding with regard to reduction in weight of assured is concerned, same is based on unrebutted evidence led by the plaintiffs and insofar as findings on law as referred to above are concerned, the same are based upon a judgment in Mithoolal Nayak V/s. L. I. C. of India, AIR 1962 SC 814. Insofar as the finding with regard to reduction in weight of assured is concerned, same is based on unrebutted evidence led by the plaintiffs and insofar as findings on law as referred to above are concerned, the same are based upon a judgment in Mithoolal Nayak V/s. L. I. C. of India, AIR 1962 SC 814. Learned subordinate Judge has also referred number of judgments as well on the same point, but there is no need to mention the same, as this court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by him, as mentioned above. 6. Finding no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed, however, leaving parties to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.