JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Abdnr Rahim says that he kept a pedlar's shop in the City of Meerut : the goods from this shop were taken from time to time to fairs and exhibitions. His father Abdul Qayum carried on the same business sections He was declared an insolvent some time prior to 1913, Abdul Qayum had his shop in the Meerut Cantonments, quite separate and distinct from the shop kept by Abdur Rahim. In the year 1913, Abdul Rahim took a large amount of goods (most of them woollen goods) to the fair or exhibition held at Bulandshahr. According to the plaint Sital Prasad (respondent to this appeal and a creditor of Abdul Qayum, the insolvent) presented an application based on wrong allegations to the Additional Judge of Meerut. The date of the application, which is No 35C on the record, was the 13tb of February 1913, and the prayer in it was that the goods of Abdur Rahim in the exhibition at Bulandshahr might be taken into the custody of the Court as. the shop and the goods were the shop and the goods of Abdul Qayum the insolvent. The Additional Judge of Meerut ordered the Receiver to attach the goods. The Receiver on the 14th of February aoting upon indications given by Sital Prasad attached all the goods at the exhibition, the value of which the plaintiff says was Rs. 500, packed them in boxes and brought them into Meerut. On the 18th of February Abdul Rahim presented an application to the Court which had attached the goods and prayed that after thorough enquiry made by the Court the attached goods might be declared the property of Abdur Rahim and released in his favour. On the 4th of July 1913 the application was granted and on the 5th Abdur Rahim asked for the return of the goods. Upon this Sital Prasad objected to the delivery, as he said he intended to appeal to the High Court at Allahabad, and prayed that the goods might remain in the custody of a Receiver pending the result of his appeal. On the 4th of July 1913 Sital Prasad got an injunction from this Court and he also got permission to appeal from the order of the Additional Judge of Meerut. This appeal was heard on the 6th of December 1913 and dismissed. The goods which had been attached were returned to Abdur Rahim on the 9th of January 1914, and were found to be badly damaged. There has been some confusion as regards the cause of damage. In certain places in the judgment of the Courts below the damage is attributed to destruction by "white ants." It is not easy to understand why or how the white ants were introduced into the case. What Abdur Rahim said was the cause of the mischief done was the work of insects such as appear in woollen goods when they are shut up and not aired during the rainy season, and this was the season in which the goods, which were to have been released on the 4th of July 1913, remained in the custody of the Receiver until the 9th of January 1914, when they were returned. The defence put in by Sital Prasad was to the effect that he was only a creditor and that; he informed the Court of what he had ascertained and from which he was satisfied that the goods were not the goods of Abdur Rahim but the goods of Abdul Qayum. He maintains that he acted in good faith and that if any damage was caused to the goods it was the Receiver's act. Abdur Rahim and Abdul Qayum, he said, were joint, had no separate capital and when the poods were at the Bulandshahr fair Abdul Qayum was ostensibly in possession of them. He maintains that he had never applied for the detention of the goods but that security should be taken from Abdur Rahim . if they were returned to him. From the above statement it will be seen that the goods (which are found to have been damaged by the agency of insects) would not have passed from the possession of the appellant on the 14th of February 1913, had it not been for the application presented by Sital Prasad in the Court of the Additional Judge at Meerut on the 13th of February 1913. We have heard the contents of the application made