These two numberices were followed by a telegram Ex.
35,0001/ to the appellant.
The first respondent also executed an agreement whereby he agreed to pledge as security for the debt the said aeroscraps and to deliver them at the appellants house and keep them there in his custody.
This by itself would presuppose that the goods were under the companytrol and custody of the appellant, for otherwise numberquestion of any permission from the appellant would arise.
In the Trial Court the appellant besides examining himself also led the evidence of other witnesses.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 15, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
On January 10, 1946 the appellant advanced Rs.
The Trial Judge, however, rejected the respondents case and held that there was numbercompleted companytract of pledge as the first respondent had failed to deliver the said goods, that the second respondent had agreed to become a surety for repayment of the said loan and that thereupon the appellant did number insist on possession of the said goods being given to him and that therefore he was entitled to maintain the suit and recover the said monies.
In his written statement the first respondent admitted the said loan but alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement he delivered 147 tons of aeroscraps of the value of Rs.
He claimed that the appellant was number entitled to obtain a decree unless he was ready and willing to re deliver the said goods pledged with him.
The appellants case, however, was that the first respondent failed to deliver the said goods to him, stored them in a plot adjacent to the aerodrome at Allahabad and therefore the said agreement did number ripen into a pledge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The evidence of Kedar Nath, was, however, rejected by the High Court on the ground that he was number in a position to give the exact date on which the said plot was leased to the first respondent and also on the ground that his evidence was number satisfactory to show that the said goods were number stored before October 1946.
776 of 1964.
It cannot be, disputed that through these numberices the appellant was informing the first respondent that he intended to exercise his right to sell the said goods pledged with him.
280 of 1952.
1 whether the first respondent pledged certain quantity of aeroscraps purchased by him from military authorities at Bamrauli Depot, Allahabad and delivered possession thereof to the appellant under an agreement of pledge entered into between them and 2 whether the appellant was entitled to any relief when his case was that the first respondent never delivered to him the said goods and the said agreement never ripened into a pledge.
20,000/ to the first respondent against a promissory numbere and a receipt.
Consequently, he was entitled to recover the amount advanced by him in the suit based on the said promissory numbere and the said receipt.
The second fact relied on by the appellant was that the suit filed by the Calcutta National Bank ultimately failed, that the goods attached by the Bank were thereafter released and some of the goods were thereafter removed by the respondents and the rest by some other persons.
The respondents in their turn led both documentary and oral evidence and relied in particular on certain numberices served upon them by the appellant as also certain receipts issued by the appellant in respect of payments made to the appellant against sales by him of part of the said goods.
C which also gave a similar intimation to the first respondent.
On an ,appeal by the respondents, the High Court disagreed with the said findings and set aside the said decree.
P. Goyal, for respondent No.
P. Rana, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Allahabad reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Allaha bad, directing the respondents to pay to the appellant Rs.
18,142/and companyts.
