L. J. LEACH AND COMPANY LTD. versus JARDINE SKINNER AND CO.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 22-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
Om Prakash Gup1a 
... 
State of U, P. 
Gooinia Menon :J. 
1957 
January, 22. 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
(a) The State v. Pandurang Baburao (supra), 
(b) Bhup Narain Saxena v. State (supra), 
and 
(c) State v. Guiab Singh('). 
We are in agreement with the view expressed 
by 
Hari Shankar and Randhir 
~ingh JJ. that no sanc-
tion is necessary and the view expressed by Mul!a J. 
to the contrary is not correct. 
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1955 will accordingly be 
dismissed. 
Criminal Appeals -Nos. 42 of 1954 and 97 
of 1955 will be heard on merits. 
L. J. LEACH AND COMPANY LTD. 
tJ. 
JARDINE SKINNER AND CO. 
(BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. 
SINHA 
and S. K. DAs JJ.) 
Amendment of plaint-Addition of alternative ground for claim 
-Necessary allegations present in plaint-Fresh suit on amended 
clat'm barred by limitation-Whether amendment should he allowed-
Action in trover-W hen maintainable. 
The appellants filed a suit for damages for conversion against 
the respondents on the allegations that the respondents were the 
agents of the appellants, that the appellants had placed orders for 
certain goods with the respondents, and that the respondents had 
actually 
imported ...t:he 
goods but refused to deliver them to the 
appellants. 
The 
suit 
was 
dismissed 
on the findings 
that the 
parties stood in the relationship of seller and purchaser, and not 
agent and principal arid that the title in the goods could only pass 
to the appellants when the respondents appropriated them to the 
appellants' 
contracts. 
In appeal before the 
Supreipe 
Court, the 
appellants applied for amendment of the plaint by raising, in the 
alternative, a claim for damages for breach of contract for nonw 
<lelivery of the goods. 
All the allegations necessary for sustaining 
a claim for damages for breach of contract were already present in 
the plaint and the only allegation lacking was that the appellants 
were, in the alternative, entitled to claim damages for breach of 
contract by the non-delivery of the goods. 
But a fresh 
suit on 
the amended claim was barred by limitation oh the date of the 
application. 
Held, that this was a fit case in which the amendment should 
be allowed. The fact that a fresh suit on the amended claim was 
(1) A.l.R. ['954] Raj. 2H. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
439 
barred by limitation is a factor to be taken into consideration in 
the exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment· should 
be ordered or not, and does not affect the power of the court to 
order it, if that is required in the interests of justice. 
Charan Das v. Amir Khan, L.R. 47 I.A. 225 and Kisan Das 
v. Rachappa, (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bombay 644, followed. 
To maintain an action in trover the plaintiffs must establish 
that they had title to the goods in question and that further they 
were entitled to possession thereof when they called upon the 
defendants to deliver them. 
If the parties stood in the relation 
of sellers and purchasers with reference to the transactions, then 
the plaintiffs 
must show that the property in the goods, which 
initially 
was 
with 
the 
defendants, had passed to them in 
accordance with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. 
If, 
however, the defendants imported the goods as agents of the 
plaintiffs, then the title to them would undoubtedly be with the 
latter, and the only question then would be whether the former 
were entitled to retain possession, as they would be if they had 
paid the price on behalf of the principals, and had not been 
reimbursed that amount. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
219 of 1953. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 
26, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 20 
of 1952 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 
December 17, 1951, of the said High Court in its 
ordinary 
Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No. 1623 
of 1948. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, M. N. 
Gharekhan and M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants. 
H. D. Banaji, D. P. Madan, S. 
N. Andley, 
Rameshwar Nath 
and /. B. 
Dadachanji, for the 
respondents. 
1957. January 22. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.-This 
appeal arises out 
of a suit instituted by the appellants in the High Court 
of 
Bombay for damages for conversion estimated at 
Rs. 4,71,670-15-0. 
The suit was decreed by Shah J. 
sitting on the Original Side, but his judgment was 
reversed on 
appeal 
by 
Chagla C.J. 
and Gajendra-
gadkar 

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