JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellants are plaintiffs 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 113 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gudivada, Krishna District and the respondents are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: One late Nimmagadda Seetha Rama Swamy, who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, took out 3 Life Insurance Policies for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and proposals for the above said sums were accepted. The said Seetha Rama Swamy paid necessary amounts till 1968 and failed to pay yearly premiums subsequently. Hence, the policies were lapsed. Later on, the above said 3 policies stood revived on 04-01-1971, 04-01-1971 and 20-7-1972 respectively for the full sums assured under the said policies, on the application made by Seetha Rama Swamy, after verification and acceptance of its contents by the 1st defendant and followed by the payment of arrears of amounts of the premiums and also compliance with necessary requirements as contemplated by law. Seetha Rama Swamy lived for about 8 years after revival of the said policies maintaining good health and died on 26-12-1977. The policies bearing Nos.36313093 and 12995171 were taken out on the life of Seetha Rama Swamy and the policy bearing No. 12921683 was a joint policy taken on the life of Seetha Rama Swamy and 1st plaintiff. After the death of Seetha Rama Swamy, all the formalities for settlement of claims under the said policies were complied with, but inspite of repeated reminders by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st defendant failed to pay the amounts. The 1st defendant gave replies to the 1st plaintiff stating that the husband of 1st plaintiff made deliberate mis-statements and withheld material information regarding his health at the time of getting the policies revived. Hence, the suit. 4. The 1st defendant gave replies to the 1st plaintiff stating that the husband of 1st plaintiff made deliberate mis-statements and withheld material information regarding his health at the time of getting the policies revived. Hence, the suit. 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was accepted by the defendants 2 and 3 by filing a memo, contending that the policies were revived only on the basis of statements and declaration made by the assured late Seetha Rama Swamy regarding his health but after the death of late Seetha Rama Swamy, on investigation, it came to light that the deceased Seetha Rama Swamy had been suffering from diabetes since about 3 years prior to the date of personal statements regarding his health given at the time of revival of the policies. Hence, the Corporation repudiated the claim of plaintiffs. Hence, it is prepared to pay a sum of Rs.40,850/- to the nominee of Seetha Rama Swamy in respect of the above 3 policies. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim the suit amount? (2) Whether suit against defendants 2 and 3 is not maintainable or in other words whether they are not necessary or proper parties to the suit? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.1,33,527/- with proportionate costs while dismissing rest of the claim without costs, against which the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 8. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs and Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondents/defendants. 9. Now, the points for determination are: 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 2. To what extent? 10. Point No. 1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 9. Now, the points for determination are: 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 2. To what extent? 10. Point No. 1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference? The undisputed facts are that the deceased Nimmagadda Seetha Rama Swamy, who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of other plaintiffs, submitted a proposal for life insurance policy before the defendants dated 22-12-1959 under the joint life endowment assurance plan for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the 1st defendant also issued a policy. It is also not in dispute that the said Seetha Rama Swamy submitted another two proposals on 07-4-1961 and 06-12-1961 for Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/-respectively and the 1st defendant also issued two policies in respect of those proposals. It is also not in dispute that Seetha Rama Swamy paid necessary amounts till the year 1968 and failed to pay yearly premiums subsequently and that the policies were lapsed. It is also not in dispute by both sides that the above 3 policies stood revived on 04-01-1971, 04-01-1971 and 20-7-1972 respectively for the full sums assured under the said policies, on an application made by Seetha Rama Swamy and subsequently the said Seetha Rama Swamy paid instalments of premium amounts to the defendants/Corporation till the date of his death. The date of death of Seetha Rama Swamy is not in dispute by the defendants. As per the case of plaintiffs, the said Seetha Rama Swamy died on 26-12-1977 and late Seetha Rama Swamy is none other than the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, the relationship is not in dispute. 11. The material on record reveals that the deceased obtained 3 policies from the defendants/Corporation. After revival of the policies in the years 1971 and 1972 respectively, the deceased made payment on instalments and later he died on 26-12-1977. The same is also not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the wife of Seetha Rama Swamy, who is the 1st plaintiff herein and legal representatives of the deceased Seetha Rama Swamy, who are plaintiffs 2 to 6, also made claims before the Life Insurance Corporation of India for settlement being nominees for settlement and later correspondence was also made by the 1st plaintiff to the defendants. 12. 12. The material on record reveals that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.1,33,527/- against the defendants. No appeal or cross-objections are filed by the defendants/Life Insurance Corporation of India against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is now questioned by the appellants, who are plaintiffs in the suit, only on the ground of disallowing interest. 13. On considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.1,33,527/- with proportionate costs, the same is not at all challenged by the defendants. It is also made clear that the policies were obtained in the years 1959 and 1961 respectively and after lapse of long time, the deceased died on 26-12-1977. Even though a claim is made by the plaintiffs, the same was not settled by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Finally, as a last resort in the year 1980, the plaintiffs approached the trial Court for recovery of amounts from the defendants/Life Insurance Corporation of India. Admittedly, the suit is instituted in the year 1980 and the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge on 21-01-1987. Now, the appellants are questioning the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that no interest was awarded from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till the date of realisation. The issuance of policies by the defendants is not at all disputed by the defendants. The death of deceased on 26-12-1977 is also not in dispute by the defendants. As seen from the material on record, the plaintiffs made some correspondence after the death of deceased with the defendants but it was futile and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file a suit for recovery of amount from the defendants/Corporation. It is settled law that the use of word “may” in Section 34 of CPC confers discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. It is settled law that the use of word “may” in Section 34 of CPC confers discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. The material on record reveals that even though correspondence was made after the death of husband of the 1st plaintiff in the year 1977, there is no response from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and as a last resort, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court in the year 1980 and the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge on 21-01-1987. It is a fact that the defendants have not paid the policies amount claimed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded by the defendants that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for the past 3 years prior to his death and the insured suppressed the same, in order to prove the same, no evidence is adduced by the defendants. As stated supra, by disbelieving the case of defendants, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit but unfortunately, no interest was awarded by the learned trial Judge at least from the date of filing of the suit by the plaintiffs till the date of realisation. As stated supra, Section 34 of CPC confers discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. On appreciation of the entire material on record and so also on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs are entitled to interest of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest of 6% per annum till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs.1,33,527/- as ordered by the trial Court. With these observations, the judgment and decree passed by the trial is modified. 14. Point No. 2: To what extent? With these observations, the judgment and decree passed by the trial is modified. 14. Point No. 2: To what extent? For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decree, dated 21-01-1987, in O.S. No. 113 of 1980, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, as the suit is decreed for Rs.1,33,527/- (Rupees one lakh, thirty three thousand, five hundred and twenty seven only) with proportionate costs and the plaintiffs are also entitled to interest of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.1,33,527/- and thereafter interest at 6% per annum till the date of realisation. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.