Allahbad High Court
S.K.VERMA,RAJESHWARIPRASAD
Purshottam Das, Banarsi Das - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12/16/1966
BAILMENT - Right of bailee to sue - Railway as bailee - Entitled to file suit for recovery of goods fraudulently or forcibly taken out of its possession by persons without title - Section 180 of the Indian Contract Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India, through the Deputy General Manager, Western Railway, filed a suit against Harshad Rai Natwar Lal Rawal, the Bank of Baroda, Birhana Road, Kanpur, Shri Shiva Chandra Misra and M/s. Purshottam Dass Benarsidass defendants 1 to 4 respectively. Messrs Purshottam Dass Benarsi Dass have filed the present first appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff, as bailee, was entitled to file a suit for recovery of the goods fraudulently or forcibly taken out of its possession by persons without title, and that the right of the plaintiff to recover the goods from the possession of defendant No. 4 would not be negated by the fact that defendant No. 3 or persons for whom defendant No. 3 acted as agent, managed to pass on the possession of the goods to defendant No. 4 as pledges thereof.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff had the right to sue, Whether the Railway Receipt on the basis of which delivery of the goods was taken was forged, Whether the person who pledged the goods with defendant No. 4 had any title to them, Whether defendant No. 4 was an innocent holder for value, Whether there was any conduct of the plaintiff which precluded it from denying the authority of the cheat to keep the goods in the commission agency of defendant No. 4, Whether the plaintiff was guilty of any negligence in the matter of delivery of the goods to defendant No 3, Whether defendant No. 4 was entitled to set off its due against the value of the goods in question, Whether the value of the goods in dispute had been highly inflated by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as bailee, was entitled to file a suit for recovery of the goods fraudulently or forcibly taken out of its possession by persons without title, and that the right of the plaintiff to recover the goods from the possession of defendant No. 4 would not be negated by the fact that defendant No. 3 or persons for whom defendant No. 3 acted as agent, managed to pass on the possession of the goods to defendant No. 4 as pledges thereof. The court also held that the defendant No. 4 was not entitled to set off its due against the value of the goods in question, as the plea of set off had been withdrawn by the counsel for the defendant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
R. PRASAD, J. : This is a first appeal, which has been filed by one of the defendants, namely, Messrs Purshottam Dass Banarsi Dass from the decision of the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Suit No. 187 of 1952 dated 3rd August, 1956. The Union of India through the Deputy General Manager, Western Railway, filed this suit against Harshad Rai Natwar Lal Rawal, the Bank of Baroda, Birhana Road,
Kanpur, Shri Shiva Chandra Misra and M/s. Purshottam Dass Benarsidass defendants 1 to 4 respectively. Messrs Purshottam Dass Benarsi Dass have filed the present first appeal.
2. The reliefs sought by the Union of India in the suit were that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4, the present appellant firm asking it to return the suit goods viz. 248 bags of Zeera and ordering it to pay compensation in respect of the fall in value by detention or otherwise consequent upon its wrongful retention, or alternatively that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4 that it should pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 38.000 with interest at six per cent from the date of the suit till realisation, or in the alternative a decree be passed against defendants Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally for Rs. 38,000 with six per cent interest from the date of the suit till realisation. There were certain other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs but they are now no more relevant for the purposes of the first appeal.
3. The facts alleged in the plaint put shortly are these: The Union of India was the owner of the Western Railway. Unjha and Kanpur Collectorganj are both stations on the system of the Western Railway, and the Union of India in its commercial capacity as Railway carriers operated in regard to transport of passengers and goods on and in between the aforesaid stations. On 20th July 1950, Harshad Rai Natwar Lal defendant No. 1 booked a consignment of 248 bags of white Zeera at Unjha for Kanpur Collectorganj. Railway Receipt No. 577283 dated 20th July 1950 covered the consignment. It was consigned to self. Another consignment of one bag white Zeera was likewise booked by the defendant No. 1 ex-Unjha to Kannauj and the number of the relative. Railway Receipt was 577284 dated 20th July 1950. This was also consigned to self. The first consignment was loaded in wagon No. 13973 to the extent of 130 bags, and wagon No. 11314 to the extent of 118 bags. They were despatched for destination by 412 Down shunting on 21st July, 1950. The consignment of one bag ex-Unjha to Kannauj was loaded in a T. R. Van to its destination as it was a small consignment. Defendant No. 1 passed on the Railway Receipt in regard to one bag ex-Unjha to Kannauj to some cheats and sent the Railway Receipt with regard to the consignment of 248 bags ex-Unjha to Kanpur Collectorganj to the Bank of Baroda Kanpur branch with the request that the same be delivered to one Sitaldass Baldev Prasad, which was a fictitious name on payment of Rs. 30.000/- for which a Hundi was also drawn. The cheats went over to Kanpur and requested the Bank of Baroda for sometime to retire the Railway Receipt with regard to 248 bags. On 24th July 1950, the Bank of Baroda had received the Railway Receipt covering the consignment of 248 bags along with the Hundi for Rs 30,000/- with direction as B. C. draft (bill to be collected) and not B. P. (bill purchased). The Bank of Baroda defendant No. 2 did not make any effort to find out if there was a firm by the name of Sitaldass Baldevdass in Nayaganj Kanpur. Nor did they ever present the Railway Receipt before 3rd August 1950 before the plaintiffs. The cheats who were in possession of the Railway Receipt relating to the consignment of one bag ex-Unjha to Kannuj cleverly and fraudulently made forgery in the said Railway Receipt so as to convert it into Railway Receipt relating to the consignment of 248 bags ex-Unjha to Kanpur. They changed the last digit of the Railway Receipt and its destination from Kannauj to Kanpur Collectoraganj. They effected delivery of the goo
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.