Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

76 “25. ……….. For the purpose of this judgment, we refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the finding of the leaned single Judge in paragraph 16 that it is impossible to hold that the goods in dematerialized form are capable of delivery that is by handing over de-facto possession. We will presume that it is possible to do so…….”  the pawnee. In this background, the Court rejected the claim of the pawnor for the redemption of the pawn as the pawnee had transferred the rights in respect of the pawned shares by depositing them as margin with the third party. The view expressed was that the said transaction by the pawnee could not be ignored; otherwise, it would render the arrangement agreed upon as meaningless and devoid of commercial sense. This judgment also refers to an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in Firm Thakur Das Marakhan Lal v. Mathura Prasad and Others,77 which was a case in which the three ornaments had been sub-pledged. The debt payable having been extinguished by virtue of a debt redemption act, the pawnor had sued for recovery of the ornaments on the ground that the sub-pledges did not bind him. In this context, the Allahabad High Court had observed that Section 179 of the Contract Act clarifies that if a person has a limited interest in the goods and pledges them, the pledge is valid to the extent of that interest only. Reliance was placed on Judge Story’s book on ‘Bailments’, which records as under: