TMI Blog1936 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at certain securities which had been lodged with them by Prem Nath Bhargava were liable to be sold in satisfaction of their claim. The learned Munsif decreed the claim against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with costs but dismissed the claim as against Mst. Sheelwanti, defendant No. 3, with costs. On appeal the learned Civil Judge upheld the findings of the Munsif and dismissed the appeal. Against that decision in so far as it concerns Mst. Sheelwanti the plaintiff bank have appealed in second appeal to this court. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows: Prem Nath Bhargava, defendant No. 2, was a customer of the plaintiff bank and had a current account thereat. On April 25, 1928, this current account was transferred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e husband Prem Nath Bhargava. It was also contended that the shares were actually transferred by Mst. Sheelwanti to her husband or in any event that they were deposited by Prem Nath Bhargava with the consent of his wife and therefore that these shares could be sold to discharge the debt due from Prem Nath Bhargava. This issue was hotly contested in the lower courts and it has been argued strenuously before me that in the circumstances of this case Mst. Sheelwanti had handed over these shares of her husband in order that they should be deposited by way of security to secure his overdraft. The share certificates had attached to them a transfer signed in blank by Mst. Sheelwanti and this would suggest that Mst. Sheelwanti handed thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them to C in violation of private orders from A. The sale is good." It is contended that the present case 2 fall entirely within Illustration B to Section 237 of the Contract Act, but in my view this section has no application unless the person handing over the negotiable instruments is a principal and the person who receives them is an agent. The section in terms speaks of the person dealing with third persons as the agent of the principal sought to be made liable. There was no relationship of principal and agent existing between the husband and Mst. Sheelwanti. A custodian of goods for safe custody is a bailee of the goods and is not an agent of the true owner for the purposes of dealing with the goods. In the present case up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing so the latter was in my opinion entitled to be represented on this commission and to cross-examine the witnesses. She was therefore entitled to some costs in respect of this commission. She instructed a senior counsel from Agra who proceeded on a number of occasions to Calcutta and she claimed a sum of Rs. 291-3-0 in respect of the costs incurred. Eventually a sum of Rs. 223 was allowed to defendant No. 3 in respect of these costs. In my judgment the amount allowed to the defendant is excessive in this case. There was no need for her to instruct counsel from Agra and thus incur heavy travelling expenses back and fore from Agra to Calcutta. If she had instructed local counsel the costs would have been considerably lower. In my view ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
