The measure of damages for conversion of ordinary goods of merchandise should be based on the state of the market subsequent to the sale, and the plaintiff should be given a reasonable time to replace the goods and secure the profit obtainable on a rising market.

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The main question in this Second Appeal bears on the correct measure of damages in a case in which the defendant, as the agent of the plaintiff, unlawfully and without authority, disposes of mercantile goods belonging to the plaintiff. It has been found by the Lower Appellate Court that the disposal of the goods by the defendant was wrongful, was without authority and that this was on the 22nd August, 1920. Information of this wrongful sale appears to have been given to the plaintiff-principal on the 28th of the same month. The Lower Appellate Court has granted damages to the plaintiff-appellant on the scale of the market value of jaggery which was the merchandise concerned on or about the 28th August. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the argument has been addressed at considerable length by Mr. Lakshmanna, the learned vakil for the appellant, that the principle on which the Lower Appellate Court assessed damages payable to the plaintiff was wrong. His contention was twofold. In the first place, he argued that in all cases of conversion, the proper measure of damages must be the highest market value in respect of the goods at any time between the date of the conversion and the date of the verdict. This is what has been referred to in Sedgwick on Damages as "the highest intermediate value." So far as it is concerned, it is impossible to accede to such a contention as the general rule applicable to all cases without distinction. The principle underlying the grant of damages is undoubtedly this; the Court will, so far as money can do it, place the plaintiff in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong charged had not been committed. It is clear that, so far as the English cases go, there has been no definite rule that has been Lald down by the learned Judges. In Sedgwicks book in paragraph 508 (a) the following illuminating passage occurs:

The most important point to be gathered from the English cases seems to be that the measure of damages is regarded as very much at large and dependant upon the particular circumstances of the case, and that there is no unalterable rule of the highest market value between the date of conversion or breach and that of the trial.

2. Undoubtedly, if the principle governing the grant of damages is as stated above, it follows necessarily that in every case it is a question for the Court to determine what the proper measure is, having regard to all the circumstances, the date when the wrong is committed, the place where it is committed and the circumstances under which it is committed. It cannot at the same time be said that the rule of the highest intermediate (sic).

3. There may conceivably be cases where that must be regarded as the proper measure, but the circumstances of the case are that the goods which are alleged to have been converted are ordinary goods of merchandise - jaggery, and with regard to this, there is no allegation before us and indeed there could be none that similar goods or goods of even similar quality were not obtainable or obtainable in sufficient quantity at that time and place. The rule with regard to damages applicable to cases of ordinary merchandise would undoubtedly be different to the rule applicable to articles of peculiar value, such as pictures and so on and also to such articles of special value as precious gems, pearls and so on. The goods in question having been ordinary goods of merchandise, we have to derive the proper measure of damages by the application of the principle already enunciated. Assuming then that on the 22nd there was this wrongful conversion, it follows that, as the plaintiff did not come to know of the wrongful conversion till the 28th, he could not have, by anything that he did, placed himself in a position to repair the damages done to him during the interval. The Lower Appellate Court has fixed the market value on the 28th as the proper measure of damages. Mr. Laks