N.M. Kasliwal, J. - (1.) This civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Pali dated September 7, 1970 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 65,950/-. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal.
(2.) Pali Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Pali (hereinafter referred to 'as the Bank'), filed a suit against the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to 'as the Corporation') on April 3, 1964. The plaintiff's case as alleged in the plaint is that the plaintiff Bank is a corporate body registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. The Government of Rajasthan established a Warehouse Corporation in the State of Rajasthan having its head office at Jaipur. This Corporation established a number of Warehouse at different places in the State of Rajasthan and one was established at Pali. The plaintiff bank used to issue loans to the various Co-operative Societies. The Pali Kriya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Pali (hereinafter referred to 'as the Samiti') was a registered co-operative society and also a member of the plaintiff Bank. The Samiti used to take cash credit loans from time to time from the plaintiff bank. The Samiti used to put its grain in the warehouse of the Corporation at Pali and obtain receipts and further obtain cash credit loan from the plaintiff bank by pledging such receipts. The Samiti used to make necessary endorsement on the receipts in favour of the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank used to inform the warehouse at Pali and thereafter the plaintiff bank had lien over such goods and the delivery of such goods could only be given by the defendant to the plaintiff or to any other person as directed by the plaintiff. The Samiti deposited the goods mentioned in para 5 of the plaint in the godown of the warehouse Pali through 9 receipts from January 13, 1962 to October 3, 1962. The entire goods so deposited consisted of 670 maunds of Til and 890 quintals of Wheat. The Samiti pledged the above goods with the plaintiff bank and gave 9 receipts after making necessary endorsement to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank thereafter informed the defendant that the Samiti had pledged the above goods by way of security of the loan obtained by them from the plaintiff bank and the bank had secured a lien on the said goods. On the instructions of the plaintiff bank the defendant delivered 60 bags of Till equal to 120 maunds to the Samiti on October 3, 1962. Rest of the goods i.e. 550 maunds of Til and 890 quintals of Wheat remained with the defendant. The plaintiff then demanded the delivery of the remaining goods from the defendant and also served a registered notice on September 12, 1963 to give the delivery of the entire goods after taking necessary storage charges but the defendant declined to deliver the goods. The defendant also sent a reply informing the plaintiff that "the goods had already been illegally removed by the Manager of the Samiti when the Warehouseman was on leave, the stock could not be got verified by the Warehouseman at Pali. Kindly ask the Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti Limited Pali to clear off the advances made against the warehouse receipts immediately". The defendant through its second letter dated October 18, 1963 further wrote that 2165 bags have been illegally removed from the Warehouse at Pali through the direct connivance of the Warehouseman and the Manager, Marketing Society, who was on deputation from the Cooperative Department. The plaintiff in the above circumstances filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 77,180/-, price of the goods.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and in the written statement denied its liability to pay the amount. The defendant took the plea that the plaintiff did not come in the definition of 'depositor' within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Rajasthan Warehousing Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act'). The Pali Warehouse was not a licensed warehouse under the Act. Bishan Singh was not a ware house man within the definition of section 2(g) of the Act. The plaintiff was not lawfully holder of the receipts and as such was not entitled to claim delivery of the goods. The Samiti used to store the goods in the Warehouse Pali and as such Samiti alone was entitled to claim the delivery of the goods. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The pledging of the goods by the Samiti with the plaintiff bank against the cash credit loan was denied. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff bank did not inform the defendant about the creation of any lien in their favour. It was also pleaded that the defendant did not commit any negligence and Chajju Ram Manager of the Samiti and Bishan Singh warehouseman in collusion removed the goods from the warehouse for which a report was lodged in the police station and a criminal case was pending against Shri Bishan Singh and Chajju Ram, for the above act committed by Chajju Ram and Bishan Singh, the defendant could not be held responsible. It was also pleaded that under section 151 of the Contract Act if the goods had been stolen without any negligence on the part of the bailee, the defendant in the capacity of a bailee cannot be held liable for the delivery of the goods. The price of the goods as claimed by the plaintiff was also contested. Certain other pleas regarding not impleading Pali Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti as a party,"in the absence of whom the suit was not maintainable, were also taken.;