DHIAN SINGH SOBHA SINGH & ANOTHER versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 29-10-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
' I \ 
\ 
~I 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
781 
DHIAN SINGH SOBHA SINGH & ANOTHER 
THE UNION OF INDIA 
(BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Bailment-Non-delivery of goods by bailee-Rights and 
remedies of bailor-Election-Action for wrongful deten-
tion and wrongful conversion-Distinction-Value in the 
alternative, if as at the date of decre~-Value stated in the 
notice, if a bar to recovery Clf appreciated value-Damageg 
for wrongful detention-Principle of assessment-Code of 
Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), s. 80. 
The appellants, by an agreement, let out two trucks on 
hire to the respondent. 
The respondent terminated the. 
agreement but failed to return the trucks on the fixed date 
on the plea that they had already been returned to a part--
ner of the appellants. The appellants served the stat\1tory 
notice -under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, on 
the respondent's failure to comply, brought a suit for wrong-
ful, detention claiming, inter alia, return of the trucks· or· 
their value in the alternative as stated in the notice and 
damages for wrongful detention till delivery. Claim was 
also made for such appreciated value of the trucks as would: 
prevail at the date of the decree by paying additional 
Court fee. The trial court held that the return of the truckS' 
as alleged by the respondent was not justified, and, besides· 
the rent claimed in the suit, passed a decree for recovery of 
the price of the trucks in the alternative as stated in the· 
notice and interest thereon by way of damages, holding_ 
that the price as at the date of the tort· was sufficient com--
pensation in law either for wrongful conversion or for-
wrongful detention. 
The High Court affirmed the deci-
sion of the trial court so far as the recovery of the price· 
in the alternative was concerned holding that the respon-
dent could not be called upon to pay more than what it was 
asked to pay by the notice, but disagreed on the question 
of award of damages and enhanced the decree to· the ex-
tent of the claim as tentatively laid in the appeal. 
Held, that the courts below were in error in deciding· 
the matter as they did and the appeal must be allowed. 
Where the bailee fails to deliver the goods the bailor 
has normally the right to elect his own remedy ~nd sue him 
either for wrongful conversion or for wrongful detention. 
If he chooses to adopt the latter remedy, the bailee cannot. 
take advantage of his own wrongful conversion and com--
pel the bailor to choose the other remedy to his disadvant-
age. 
Reeve v. Palmer, (1858) 5 C.B. (N.S.) 84, and Wilkinson 
v. Verity, (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 206, referred to. 
The cause of action in a suit for wrongful detention, un-
like that in a suit for wrongful eonversion, is a continuing: 
1957 
Octobe 29 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[Hl58] 
1957 
one, and the measure of damages must be the value of the 
• . 
-. -
goods not as at the date of the tort but as at the date of 
u~!an Singh Sobha the judgment. Although the cause of action arises with the 
>mgh & Anather 
1 f h b ·1 
d I" 
h 
d 
"t 
· 
"JI 
v. 
refusa o .t e ai ee to e 1ver t e goo s, 1 continues ti 
n, Union of India delivery is made by the bailee or he is ce ·pelled to do so 
by a decree of court. While in a suit for wrongful conver-
sion the plaintiff abandons his title and claims damages in 
. lieu of the goods, in a case of wrongful detention the plain-
tiff claims delivery of the goods on the basis of his title 
that subsists till the date of decree. Consequently, the 
value of the goods in the alternative on failure of delivery 
.ean be ascertained only at the date of the decree. 
Rosenthal v. Alderton & Sons Ltd., [1946] I K.B. 374, 
referred to. 
Case-Jaw discussed. 
It is well settled that in a suit for wrongful detention the 
plaintiff is entitled not merely to the delivery of the goods 
or their value in the alternative but also to damages for the 
wrongful detention till the date of the decree. The princi-
ple for assessing such damages must be the same as in any 
ether cafle where the wrongful act of one 10 Injures some· 
thing belonging to another as to render it unusable or some-
thing is taken away so that it can no longer be usE!d, and 
the amount of ·damages must be ascertained by a reason-
able calculation after taking all relevant circumstances into 
consideration. In the instant case the High Court should 
have made a reasonable calculation of the number of days 
the trucks. could have been 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.