Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaint filed by the plaintiff is a bald one. It did not set out the right under which the plaintiff was claiming any relief against the State. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff asserted that he was a pledgee of the goods in question. No such case was pleaded in the plaint nor any issue raised in that regard. The agreement entered into between the plaintiff and Hetampal Singh does not show that the goods in question had been pledged to the plaintiff. The agreement provides that the appellant shall be in possession of the goods purchased and dispose of the same in accordance with the directions given by Hetampal Singh. The finding, of the High Court is that the grain was removed by the Government from the possession of the appellant without any force or fraud and the appellant handed over that grain to the Government in response to a communication from the Controller of Foodgrains. At no stage he told the Government that he was a pledgee of the goods. The decision in Santi Sahu vs. Sheogulam Sahu(1); relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of no assistance to him because the agreement relied on in that case is materially different from the one before us. On an interpretation of that document the court came to the conclusion that it constituted a bailment for security and that it is a pledge within the meaning of s. 172 read with s. 148 of the Contract Act. That is not the position here. Therefore the High Court was fully justied in rejecting the claim of the appellant that he was a pledgee of the goods. The claim of the appellant was next tried to be supported on the plea that he had a lien over the goods. No such plea was taken in the plaint. An Agent no doubt has a specific lien upon the principal's property in his possession for his compensation and expenses during the course of the agency with reference to that property. Section 221 of the Contract Act provides that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, an agent is entitled to retain goods, papers and other property, whether movable or immovable, of the principal received by him, until the amount due to him for commission, disbursements and services in respect of the same has been paid or accounted for to him. An agent who is entitled to be reimbursed from the principal's property for the expenses incurred, advances made or losses sustained during the course of the agency or who is entitled to be compensated for his services has a lien upon the principal's goods or property which comes lawfully in his possession during the course of the agency from which the right to indemnity or compensation arises. A purchasing agent has a lien upon the principals goods in his possession upon which he has paid money in purchasing. 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 the lien is claimed. The lien does not arise where the possession of the property is acquired by the agent under a contract which expressly or impliedly shows contrary intention, or where it is delivered to him for a particular purpose inconsistent with the existence of lien thereon. The agent has no lien over the property where it is en- trusted to him for a special purpose which is inconsistent with the lien claimed. Further the lien of 'an agent being a mere right to retain possession of the property subject thereto, is lost by parting with the possession of the goods unless at the time of parting with them he reserved expressly or impliedly his right of lien or they are obtained from him by fraud or unlawful means. (1) A.I.R. 1958 Pat 174 The question whether an agent can enforce his lien in a particular case is a mixed question of law and facts. Therefore in the absence of any specific plea, that question cannot be gone into. We do not know the conditions under which Hetampal Singh was appointed as a licence holder. From the material on record, it is not clear whether the goods in question were taken possession of by the Government in accordance with the conditions of the licence ranted to Hetampal Singh. Therefore it is not possible to decide whether under the circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff could have enforced his lien against the State. It is true that the plaintiff informed the Government that Hetampal Singh owed to him about Rs. 20.000/-. But from that circumstance we cannot come to the conclusion that while voluntarily parting with the possession of the goods, he reserved expressly or by implication his right of lien, if he had any. We do not think that the rule laid down in Balmukund and anr. vs. Jagannath(1) relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant bears on the facts of this case. Under these circumstances it is not possible to uphold the appellant's claim against the State. Therefore the appeal fails so far as the State is concerned. It is accordingly dismissed, as against the 1st defendant, the State of Madhya Pradesh.