K N K LYENGARM Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant who was the surety in S. C. No. 340/1995 on the file of the small causes judge, Bangalore, the suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of money due, granted under overdraft facility is the revision petitioner.

(2.) NOW the contention of the second defendant surety before this court notwithstanding that he has not filed the written statement is that though he signed the surety form, he has not filed any other documents to make him liable under the decree. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that the property though movable has been attached to the earth, therefore they are immovable". Consequently, the suit for recovery of money based on hypthecation is not maintainable.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the bank relies on the following decisions to prove that the machinery fixed to the earth is not immovable property but it is only movable property;