DHARNI DHAR Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree to the order proposed to be passed in this appeal. I, however, wish to deal with the main question of law which has been discussed in this case.

(2.) THE main question of law which calls for decision in this case is whether the rule laid down in the English case, Merryweather v. Nixon, (1799) 8 T. R. 186 : 16 R. R. 810 : 101 E. R. 1337, applies to India. On this question, there is a serious conflict of judicial opinion in India. There is a serious conflict of opinion even in this Court. This is the principal reason for reference of this case to a Full Bench.

(3.) IN course of time certain qualifications were engrafted on the original rule by later authorities as well as by statutes. Particular reference may be made to the case of Adamson v. Jarvis, (1827) 4 Bing 66 at p. 73, in which the plaintiff, an auctioneer, was considered to be entitled to an indemnity from the defendant (client) who had instructed him to sell goods to which, it subsequently appeared, he had no title. Best, C. J. in delivering the judgment of the Court observed: