-THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.448 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) This appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.03.2009, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.500 of 2009 in O.S.No.16 of 2009. The appellant herein instituted a suit-O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of sum of Rs.1,23,906/-, which was paid by him as an advance to the respondents in connection with the lease of a mechanized fishing boat. It is averred that R-2 received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.10,15,000/- on two occasions towards advance relating to the lease transaction and thereafter, the construction of the boat was completed. It is stated that at the time of filing of the suit, contrary to the oral lease agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondents, the respondents have been trying to sell away the said boat to some other third parties and under these circumstances contending that if the respondents, as proposed by them, shift the boat to the Fishing Harbour, Visakhapatnam, it will not possible for the appellant to recover the suit amount as the said mechanized fishing boat is the only property possessed by the respondents, the appellant instituted the said suit. In the said suit, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the said mechanized fishing boat before judgment, whereupon the learned trial Court directed the respondents to furnish security for the suit amount within 48 hours from the service of notice and alternatively, on their failure to furnish security, ordered the attachment of property. Thereafter, the respondents appeared before learned trial Court and filed an application to raise the attachment. Along with the said application they offered security of immovable property together with Encumbrance certificate and also third party security with indemnity bonds. In their affidavits, the third parties undertook that in the event of failure of the respondents to pay the decretal amount, they are liable to pay the same and that they are also furnishing their properties as security to the decree that is to be passed in the suit. The learned trial Court, upon thoroughly examining the documents filed by the respondents and the third party sureties, and on being satisfied with the said security, raised the attachment by allowing the petition filed by the respondents. Assailing the said order, the present appeal is filed. At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant would contend that the immovable property which is furnished as security by the respondents is an assigned property, which cannot be given as security and the learned trial Court under a mistaken impression that the respondents have full title to the said property accepted the same and therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said immovable property is not an assigned property and to prove the said fact the appellant did not place any material. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the immovable property offered as security by the respondents was purchased by them under a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court on thorough verification of documents filed by the respondents, and on being satisfied with the security offered by the respondents, raised the attachment. No material is placed by the appellant to prove that the immovable property offered by the respondents as security is either fake or insufficient. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, we consider the appeal as devoid of any merit and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKJASH RAO _______________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 15th April 2010 dr