Case: Ramprasad S/O Prabhudayal Mathur Vaishya Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Anr

Jadhav Thakur Sahab. Naya Bazar Lakshkar, Gwalior.I Hetampalsingh Jadhav, son of Bhagwansingh Jadhav, caste Thakur, am a resident of Naya Bazar, Lashkar.I have taken contract for supplying grain seed in District Gird for which I need money for bringing every kind of grain from different places. Therefore, I appoint Ramprasad, son of Prabhudayal, caste Mathur Vaishya, resident of Naya Bazar, Lashkar, as my adhatia (commission agent) and settle the following terms:-(1) I shall pay interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent on the amount which will be invested by the Seth Sahab for this purpose.(2) I shall pay commission at the rate of Re. 1-8-0 per cent on the goods which will be brought by the Seth Sahab or his man from outside and I shall pay commission at the rate of Re. 1 per cent on the goods which will be brought by me from outside and for which the Seth Sahab will have only to get released the railway way-bill.(3) I shall pay the whole expenses of journey, railway fare, allowance, etc. of the persons who will go out on behalf of the Seth Sahab for bringing the goods.(4) The whole of the goods which will be received from outside, shall remain in possession of the Seth Sahab. The account thereof shall also remain with him. The Seth Sahab will have authority to supply only so much goods as I would permit him to supply, i.e., he cannot supply goods to anybody of his own accord. The expenses which will be incurred in keeping account and other expenses of the shop shall be borne by the Seth Sahab. I shall pay only rent of the shop.(5) I shall be responsible for any increase or decrease in the goods.Sd./- Hetampal Singh Jadhav,(InIn pursuance of the said agreement, the appellant purchased considerable stock of grain. He had in possession on January 29, 1943, 4,039 maunds 35 seers 4 chhatacks of gram. According to the appellant on that day Hetampal Singh owed him a sum of Rs. 19,228-9-6. The possession of that stock was taken over by the State Government on January 29 and 30th, 1949. The State Government paid the price of the said stock to Hetampal Singh.The appellants case is that the Government is liable to reimburse him the money due to him from Hetampal Singh. Before the suit came to be filed Hetampal Singh had died and hence the 2nd defendant was impleaded as his legal representative.

Reasoning: The appellants case is that the Government is liable to reimburse him the money due to him from Hetampal Singh. Before the suit came to be filed Hetampal Singh had died and hence the 2nd defendant was impleaded as his legal. But coming to the cross-objection filed by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court, appears to have completely lost sight of the same. It did not deal with that cross-objection while disposing of thesuch plea was taken in the plaint. An agent no doubt has a specific lien upon the principals 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 principals 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 principals 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 thein 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 entrusted 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 position 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 unlawfulin 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 athe 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 granted 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 v. Jagannath, ILR (1963) 13 Raj 579 = (AIR 1963 Raj 212  ), relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant bears on the facts of this case. Under the circumstances it is not possible to uphold the appellants 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.But coming to thefiled by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court, appears to have completely lost sight of the same. It did not deal with thatwhile disposing of theappeal. The trial Court did not give any reason for rejecting the plaintiffs claim for interest on the principal amount from the date of the suit till the date of the decree.