LexLALLAN PRASAD versus RAHMAT ALI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F LAI.LAN PRASAD \' RAHMAT ALI & ANR. • December 13, 1966 [R. S. BACHAWAT AND J, M. SHELAT, JJ.] lnclia11 Co11traC't Act (9 of 1872), s. 116--Pawnee denying pledge-· Right to niaintain suit for recovery of anzount front pawner. The appellant advanced Rs. 20,000 to the first respondent against a promissory note and a receipt. The first respondent executed an agree· ment whereby he agreed to pledge as security for the debt certain goods, to deliver them to the !.ppellant, and to keep them in the appellant's. custody. The appellant filed a suit on the promissory note claiming that. ·4 the first respondent failed to deliver the goods, that the agreement t1!er•·· fore did not ripen into a p!edge, and that consequently, he was entitled to recover the amount advanced by him. It \Vas found on the evidence~, that the goods were delivered to the appellant, and that he wa; a ;>ledgee thereof. On the question whether the appellant was entitled to a decree in view. of his denial of the pledge and his taeure 'to offer to redeliver the good~. HELD : The appellant would not be entitled· to a decree on the promissory note and also retain the goods found to have been deliverec;. to him and to be in his custody. [240 F.G] · Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. deals with the rights of a pawnee and provides that in. case of .default by tho pawner the· pawnec has (I) the right to sue upon the debt and to retain the goods as collateral security, and (2) the right to sell the goods after reasonable notice of the intended sale to the pawner. So Jong, however. as the- Si!le docs not take place, the pawner is entilted to redeem the goods on payment of the deht. Therefore, the right to sue on the debt assumes th~t he is in ~ position to redeliver the goods on payment of t'1e debt, and. 1f by denying the pledge or otherwise, he has put himself 1n 11 pos1tton whereby he 1s not ·able to redeliver the goolls, he cailnot obtain a decree. [240 A-CJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTTON : Civil Appeal No. 776 of° 1964. . Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 15, G 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 280 of 1952. H 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. J. P. Goyal, for respondent No. I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shela!, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the· judg,ment and de.cree passed by the High Court of Allahabad. re-. versmg the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, All#tfa •. 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967) 2 S.C.R. bad, directing the rcsp•)lldents to pay to the appellant Rs. 18,142/- and costs. Two questions arise in this appeal: ri= .• (1) whether the first respondent pledged certain quantity of aeroscraps purchased by him from military authorities at Bamrauli Depot, Allahahad and delivered possession thereof to the appellant under an agreement of pledge entered into between them and (2) whether the appellant was entitled to any relief when his case was that the first respondent never delivered to him the said goods and the said agreement never ripened into a pledge. On January JO, 1946 the appellant advanced Rs. 20,000/- to the first respondent against a promissory note and a receipt. The first respondent also executed an agreement whereby he agreed to pledge as security for the debt the said aeroscraps and to deliver ·them at the appeliant"s house and keep them there in his custody, The appellant's case, however, was that the first respondent failed to deliver the said goods to him, stored them in a plot adjacent to the aerodrome at Allahabad and therefore the said agreement did not ripen into a pledge. Consequently, he was entitled to recover the amount advanced by him in the suit based on the said promissory note and the said receipt. In his written statement the first respon- dent admitted the said loan but alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement he delivered 147 tons of aeroscraps of the value of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant. He claimed that the appellant ;was not entitled to obtain a d~-cree unless· he was ready and willing to re- deliver the said goods pledged with him. In the Trial rourt the appellant besides examining hi1melf also led the evidence of other witnesses. The respondenl~ in their turn led both documenta.ry and oral evidence and relied in particular on certain notices served upon them by the appellant as also certain receipts issued by the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.