The unsuccessful plaintiff filed instant appeal against Judgment and decree, dated 31.10.1990 in O.S.No.155 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. His suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,000/- which includes Rs.58,600/-towards damages and Rs.23,400/-towards salvage charges, was dismissed by trial Court accepting the plea of respondent insurance company, namely, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (now Oriental Insurance Company Limited). In this appeal, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in suit.

2. The case of plaintiff is as follows. Bobbala Dharma Raju is original owner of MPM 370 fishing boat. So as to insure the boat with defendant company, Dharma Raju paid first instalment of premium in a sum of Rs.1,650/-on 17.12.1982. Even before regular Marine Hull Policy could be issued, he entered into an agreement with plaintiff to sell the boat for Rs.66,000/-. Having received entire sale consideration, he transferred boat to plaintiff. On 15.02.1983, seller and buyer addressed letters to defendant for transfer of Marine Policy. On 12.03.1983, agent of defendant addressed communication to plaintiff advising to pay second instalment premium to defendant. In response thereto, on 23.03.1983, plaintiff paid second instalment and defendant issued receipt favouring Dharma Raju. Yet again, on 15.06.1983, defendant's agent addressed yet another letter to plaintiff to pay third instalment of premium which was paid on 29.06.1983 under a receipt in the name of Dharma Raju. Unfortunately, on 03.07.1983, the boat drowned in Bay of Bengal near Krishnapatnam. Plaintiff issued telegram and also addressed letter on 19.09.1983 requesting to send necessary forms to enable him to make claim for loss of boat under Hull Policy. As there was no response, he got issued a legal notice on 06.12.1983. In response thereto, defendant sent a reply on 27.12.1983 denying liability. However, surveyor sent by defendant company inspected the boat, estimated damage and submitted a report recording statements of driver and luskers of the boat.

3. Defendant opposed suit taking following pleas. Purchase of fishing boat by plaintiff and transfer of licence in his favour by Port Officer are denied. Defendant is not aware of any such purchase nor it has knowledge that plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.10,000/-for repairs. Dharma Raju gave proposal to insure the boat under Hull Policy No.MH/38/82, dated 17.12.1982, but sale of the boat by plaintiff is denied. The allegation that plaintiff and Dharma Raju sent letter on 15.02.1983 under Certificate of Posting is denied. Plaintiff did not pay second and third instalment premiums. Defendant issued policy covering risk of the boat in favour of Dharma Raju, who alone is in possession of original policy. Defendant never received any intimation either from Dharma Raju or from plaintiff about transfer of vessel nor there was any communication requesting to transfer policy to plaintiff. Dharma Raju alone is the policyholder and he is parted with possession and on the date of alleged accident, he was not owner of the boat. Plaintiff is not insured under any policy, and therefore, defendant is not liable to reimburse plaintiff. There is no transfer of policy as per articles of policy nor such transfer was endorsed on the policy. There is no privity of contract nor legal obligation to reimburse plaintiff. As on the date of accident, there is no subsisting policy issued by defendant to plaintiff. The allegation that Dharma Raju transferred the boat has not been duly endorsed by defendant and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from defendant. Defendant did not receive premium in respect of third instalment on or before 16.03.1983. The interim policy lapsed and was not subsisting as on 03.07.1983 when the accident occurred. The policy became inoperative and plaintiff cannot invoke the terms of policy. The civil Court has no jurisdiction as under the pol