RAMPRASAD S/O PRABHUDAYAL MATHUR VAISHYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 07-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

677 
A 
RAMPRASAD S/O PRABHUDA\i'AL MATHUR VAISHYA 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
October 7, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Contract Act (9 of 1872)., ss. 148, 172 and 221-Pledge, when can 
be' in/erred-Agent's lien on goods-When 
arises-Practice 
and Pro-
cedure-Decreeing interest from date of suit till da~ of decree. 
A licence holde,r from the State for distribution of grain, a~pointed 
the appellant as his commission agent for the sale of the grain. The 
agreement provided that the appeJlant should be in possession of the grain 
purchased and dispose it of in accordance with the dir;,ctions given by the 
licence bolder. Later the State Government paid to the licence holder, 
the price of the stock then in the possession of tho appellant and took over 
the stock. The appellant, while banding over the grain, informed 
the 
Government that the licence holder owed him money under the agree-
ment. 
He filed a •suit to recover .the amount from the State Government 
and 
the son of the licence holder (the father having died meanwhile). 
Though the plaint did not set out the basis of the claim against the State 
the trial court de.creed the suit, against both defendants, but did not give 
any interest from the date of suit till date of decree. In appeal by the 
State, and cross-objections by the appellant claiming the interest, the High 
Court set aside lhe decree against the State, but did not p·ass any order 
on the cross-objections. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant claimed to be pledgee of the 
goods and that he had a lien over the goods. 
HELD : (1) The agreement does not show that the goods had been 
pledged to the appellant. 
The question whether an agent can enforce his lien in a particular 
case is a mixed question of law and facts. 
As a general rule, in order 
to have a lien an agent must have some possession, custody or control 
or disposing power in or over the subject-matter in which l~en is claimed. 
The lien does not arise where the possession of the proptity. is acquired 
by the agent under a contract which expressly or impliedly shows a con-
trary intention or where it is deliVered to him for a particular purpose 
inconsistent with the existence of a lien. Further, the lien is lost 
by 
parting with the possession, unless at the time of parting he expressly 
or impliedly reserved his right of lien, or the goods were obtained from 
him by fraud or unlawful means In the present case, from the mere fact 
that the appellant informed the Government that his principal owed him 
money, while voluntarily parting posse"<:.sion with the goods, it could not 
be said that ho reserved expressly or by implication his right of lien 
against the State, if any. [680 E-H; 681 B-D] 
Santi Sahu v. Seogulam Sahu, A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 174 and Balmukand 
v.Jagannath, I.LR. XIII Raj. 579, held not applicable. 
(2) As against the second respondent, the appellant was entitled to the 
principal amount decreed and the lowe,r courts should have also decreed 
interest from date of suit till date of decree. [681 E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2205 of 
1966. 
. 
678 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 2 s.c.R. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 12, 
A 
1962 of .the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in First 
Appeal No. 9 of 1959. 
!. P. Goyal and S. N. Singh, for the appellant. 
I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J;legde, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 133(1) 
(a) of the Constitution. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. 
In the suit he claimed a sum of Rs. 30,699/1/3 against both the 
defendants.· The suit was decreed by the trial court against the 
defendants in a sum of Rs. 22,634/ 4/- together with costs and 
interest from the date of the decree. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 
the 1st defendant in the suit appealed against the decree. 
The 
second defendant did not appeal against that decree. The plaintiff 
filed cross-objection claiming interest 
on the principal amount 
claimed from the date of the suit till decree. The High Court al-
lowed the appeal of the State a.id set aside the decree against it; 
but it failed to pass any order on the cross-objection. In this appeal 
the appellant seeks not only to get restored the trial court's decree 
against the State of Madhya Pradesh, he also wants that the relief 
claimed by him in his cross-objection before the High Court should 
be g

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