The rights and obligations of the pawnee and pawner in a pledge, as outlined in Sections 172 to 176 of the Contract Act, influenced the court's decision regarding the appellant-Bank's entitlement to the suit amount along with loss and interest.

T.S. Doabia, Judge, (Oral):

The State Bank of India, who figured as a plaintiff was un-successful in the suit filed before the trial court. Suit stands dismissed. Now, an appeal has been preferred.

2. Issue No. 1, which was to the effect as to whether the suit is maintainable or not, was decided in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. issue No. 2, which was regarding the authority of the Branch Manager, to file the suit, was also decided in favour of the appellant-Bank. Issue No. 3 with regard to the execution of the documents before obtaining financial assistance by the defendant/respondent was also decided in favour of the appellant-bank. Same was the position vis-a-vis issue No. 4, which was regarding the admissibility of the documents. Issue No. 5, which was to the effect as to whether the mortgage deed could be executed or not, and was admissible in evidence, was also decided in favour of the appellant-Bank. What has gone against the defendant-Bank, is issue No. 6. For facility of reference, this issue is being reproduced below:-

"6/- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount alongwith loss and interest @ 13.5% per annum from 12-5-81 till payment of the whole amount? OPP"

With a view to appreciate the controversy which led to a decision being against the appellant-Bank, the following facts be noticed.

3. Within one year of the grant of the loan to the borrower, the appellant-Bank chose to lock the factory premises. During this period, a theft took place. The goods of the value of Rs. 47, 052 were subject-matter of theft. The argument put across before the trial court was that as the Bank had put the factory premises under its lock and key, therefore, to this extent the respondent-defendants could not be made liable. The total amount, which was being claimed by the defendant was to the extent of Rs. 59, 783.21. The value of the articles regarding which possession was taken, by putting the premises under lock and key, by the appellant-Bank, was taken note of by the trial Court. The balance amount payable by the defendant was calculated at Rs. 12, 431.21. The appellant-Bank had received Rs. 12, 000/- from the Insurance Company. The balance which remained and as claimed by the Bank, came to Rs. 431-32. Even, this amount was not decreed because when the suit was filed, the interest component was determined by the appellant-Bank, without taking note of Rs. 12, 000/-, which was paid by the defendant/respondent. It was, accordingly, held by the trial Court that the apellant-Bank is not entitled to any decree. It is this aspect of the matter, which is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. I am of the opinion, that once possession of the property was taken over by the appellant-Bank, and any loss was caused to the property in the meanwhile, then the respondent-Defendant cannot be burdened with such a loss. See Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali, AIR 1967 SC 1322 wherein it was observed:

" The second question would then be whether the apellant was entitled to recover the balance of the said loan in view of his denial of the pledge and his failure to offer to redeliver the goods. Under the common Law a pawn or a pledge is a bailment of personal property as security for some debt or engagement . A Pawner is one who being liable to an engagement gives to the person to whom he is liable a thing to be hold as security for payment of his debt or the fulfilment of his liability. The two ingredients of a pawn or a pledge are :

(1) that is essential to the contract of pawn that the property pledged should be actually or constructively delivered to the pawnee and,

(2) a pawnee has only a special property in the pledge out the general property therein remains in the pawner and wholly reverts to him on discharge of the debt. A pawn, therefore, is a security, where, by contract a de posit of goods is made as security for a debt.

The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as is necessary to secure the debt. In this sense a pawn or pledge i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document