ORDER

1. This appeal raises an interesting question of interpretation of clause 7 of the insurance policy, which is quoted herein:

"Warranted vessel not to be employed during unsafe weather conditions and when not in use, vessel should be safely anchored or moored or secured with proper watch and ward."

2. The appellant instituted a civil suit against New India Assurance Company Ltd., the respondent, for the recovery of insurance money in terms of the policy. The appellant was the owner of the fishing vessel which, while anchored at the coast of Purakkad at Alleppey, drifted from that place, was lost and destroyed. The appellant informed the respondent. As the claim could not be settled on account of denial by the respondent, the aforesaid suit was filed. The trial court decreed the suit holding against the Insurance Company by rejecting its contention that the appellant had violated the aforesaid clause 7.

3. In appeal the question raised was, whether it was the obligation of the appellant under the policy to appoint watch and ward and whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be said that compliance with the aforesaid clause was not made by the appellant. It