Ramaprasada Rao, J. - The first and the second defendants, the former being the Union of India represented by the Finance Department dealing with income-tax matters and the latter being the District Collector of Salem, who were unsuccessful in O.S. No. 146 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Salem, are the appellants. Certain relevant facts which led to the present litigation may he traced. The plaintiff in the action appealed against, on the foot of a hypothecation bond dated 31st August, 1960 (Exhibit A-1) filed O.S. No. 106 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Salem, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 69,778.99p. with interest and costs by directing the sale of the hypothecated properties mentioned in the plaint and for the passing of the usual charge decree. In the above suit a commissioner was appointed to take an inventory of the goods which the plaintiff claimed to have a right of hypothecation over, but which were admittedly in the possession of the hypothecator, namely, the third defendant. In the course of such an inventory prepared by the Commissioner, it was discovered that a camera, which is the subject-matter of the present action and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document