•Madras High Court
•Dated 13th August 1937
Kaliaperumal •AIR 1938 Mad 32
Pillai •Group No. 10
Vs. Shubhangi Gupta
Mahidhar Kulkarni
Visalakshmi Maadhav Krishan
Rohit M
Achi Kabir Kharga
Agan Omprakash
Facts
• The Plaintiff, Mrs. Pillai had some jewels which she wanted to be remade by a
goldsmith working under Mr. Achi, the defendant.
• Every day in the morning, the plaintiff used to be present at the defendant’s
house during the time the goldsmith worked there.
• Every evening when the goldsmith’s work was over, he handed over the half-
made jewels to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff would put those half-made jewels in
a box provided by the defendant in a room of the defendant’s house. According
to the witnesses, the key to the room remained with the plaintiff.
• One morning when the plaintiff went into the room for taking the jewels for
continuing the goldwork she found them missing from the box.
• The Defendant has filed a complaint of theft in his house and the plaintiff was
aware of the said complaint.
• The plaintiff sued the defendant for the stolen jewellery, which was kept in one
room of his house.
• In the lower court, the defendant was held liable for the loss of the plaintiff.
• The defendant then appealed in the Madras High Court.
Issues of the case.
• Whether the goldsmith can be considered as a
bailee and thus be held liable for the loss of the
plaintiff?
• Was there any Delivery of Goods from Plaintiff
to the defendant?
• Whether the defence under S.152 will apply in
this case?
• Section 149 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
• Section 149 of ICA, 1872 deals with delivery to bailee how
made.
• The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing anything which
has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the
Rules intended bailee or of any person authorized to hold them on his
behalf.
• The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing anything which
has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the
intended bailee or of any person authorized to hold them on his
behalf.
• Section 151 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872:
• Care to be taken by bailee: In all cases of bailment the bailee is
Rules bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of
ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his
own goods of the same bulk, quantity, and value as the goods
bailed.
• Section 152 in The Indian Contract Act,1872:
• Bailee when not liable for loss, etc., of thing bailed.
Rules • The Bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not
responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the
thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it
described in Section 151.
Analysis.
• The Madras High Court ruled that the defendant, in this case, will not be held
accountable.
• The contract of bailment between the lady and the goldsmith ended when the lady
picked up the partially finished jewels from the jeweler in the evening.
• She placed the unfinished jewel in the box and secured it in the accused's chamber.
The room's keys belonged to her.
• It was made plain that delivery is a crucial component of the bailment and that
leaving the box in the defendant's chamber while she kept the key was insufficient to
qualify as delivery for the purposes of section 149 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872.
• Liabilities do not arise as a result. The first need of the bailment contract in this
instance is "delivery upon contract," and as soon as the goldsmith's daily job is
finished, the contract between the woman and himself is complete.
Analysis • The Transmission of possession, according to the second
requirement, does not appear to be met in this instance.
• The woman secured the room in which she placed the
box after stowing the partially completed jewel each
evening.
• As a result, every evening she received ownership of the
items. And so, it is not accepted as a bailment contract
because section 149 of the Indian Contract Act's
definition of "delivery" is not satisfied in this case.
• The diamonds have already been stolen, making the final
necessary "return of good" impossible.
• However, if all the other requirements are met, the bailee
will be held accountable for the missing item by the
bailor.
Conclusion
• The court ruled that "Any bailment that may be inferred from
the facts must be regarded to have terminated as soon as the
Plaintiff was placed in possession of the melted gold."
• To qualify as a bailment, delivery is required. When the
plaintiff herself removed the key from the defendant's home,
the mere act of leaving the box there cannot in all certainty be
considered a delivery within the meaning of section 149.
• Because the lady received jewelry from the goldsmith every
evening, any bailment, in this case, was terminated, and as a
result, the goldsmith was not held accountable.
• Given that the lady kept the keys with her, leaving the locked
box on the defendant's property was insufficient to qualify as
delivery under section 149.
• Without legitimate possession, there can be no bailment, and
the goldsmith had no obligation to look after the diamonds.
