Bansidhar Marwari vs Anand Das and Others

Jwala Prasad, Acting C.J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff. He instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Darbhanga to recover from the defendants Rs 622, being the amount of loss sustained by him on account of the obstruction caused by the defendants to the removal of his goods from a house which he occupied and which belonged to the Mahant, defendant No. 1, as property belonging to the Asthal. Defendant No. 2 was in charge of the Asthal and was entrusted with the duty of letting out the house and collecting the rent thereof. The house was leased out to one Girindra Mohan Misser. Daring his occupation the plaintiff stored 128 bags of salt in one of the rooms in the house with his permission. Girin Babu vacated the house in February 1918, but the plaintiff continued to occupy the same. The house was leased to defendant No. 3 in April 1918. He agreed to pay half the rent of the house as long as the appellant continued to occupy some portion of it and after that he offered to pay the full rent. In May 1918 the appellant began to remove his bags of salt and had already removed 120 when the defendant No. 2, the manager of the Asthal, obstructed him from removing the same until the rent due from him for the house wan paid. He was allowed to remove in 1919. By that time his case is that 4 of the bags were found altogether empty and that there was a shortage of salt in the other bags also, and that between May 1918 to the time of removal the prise of the salt had fallen from Rs. 4 to Rs. 3 per maund and consequently the plaintiff suffered loss. At the time when the occurrence took place, the defendant No. (sic) predecessor-in-interest was the Mahant and hence the defendant No 1 was not personally responsible for the obstruction caused to the plaintiff. The Court below has also held, agreeing with the Munsif, that the charge against the defendant No 3 that the obstruction was abused at his instance was not proved.

The Trial Court held that the defendant No. 2, the manager of the Asthal, did, as a matter of fact, came obstruction to the removal of the plaintiff''s bags of salt as stated by him and was responsible for the loss caused to the plaintiff. He also found that the contents of 4 the bags were missing, but that the shortage in any of the other bags was not proved. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a modified decree.

On appeal the District Judge agreed with the Munsif in the finding that defendant No. 2 did prevent the plaintiff from removing the bags, but he dismissed the suit upon the ground that the defendant No. 2 was entitled to prevent the removed of the goods until the rent of the house was paid, his finding being that there was some rent due at the time from the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the sole question for determination in this appeal is, whether the defendant was entitled to seize the property or to detain it before the rent was paid. The learned Judge has not quoted any authority on the subject nor any provision of law. The defendant had no lien on the properties of the plaintiff kept in the house on account of the rent due to him. No doubt carriers have certain fight or lien over the property for the charges of carrying but no such lien has been created by any Statute, nor does any exist off principle in favour of the landlord with respect to the goods of his tenant. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the view of tin lave taken by the Court below is incorrect and that the defendant made him self liable to the plaintiff for the loss caused to him by the unlawful detention of his property. The question is as to the extent of this loss The contents of 4 of the bags were altogether missing. Each bag contained 3 maunds of salt. The learned Judge has held that the price of salt per mauud was Rs. 4 in May 1918 and that at the date of the release the prise had gone down to 11 seers per rupee The plaintiff is entitled to damages calculated upon this difference in the pries at the time of the obstruction in May 1918 and on tie date of the release in 1919., The lower Appellate Court also found that in case of his succeeding the plaintiff was entitled to the price of the solt in the 4 bags at the rate of 11 seers per rupee. He is also entitled to damages by way if interest on the whole value of the salt detained from the 1st May 1918 at the rate of Rs. 1-8-0 per eat. per month to the date of the suit. The plaintiffs suit to decreed with costs calculated on the amount decreed throughout against defendant No 2 in accordance with the aforesaid directions, and the appeal is accordingly decreed with costs against defendant No. 2 only. Future interest at b per sent. per annum, Against the others there will be no order as to costs. Defendants Nos. 1 and C will bear their own costs throughout.

Das, J.

I agree.