BIDDOMOYE DABEE DABEE Vs. SITTARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of opinion that, under the circumstances stated, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in both cases.

(2.) During the plaintiff's absence from home the jemadar Sheoruttun was left in charge of her house and property as her servant. He was never possessed of the articles in question in any other character. He had only the bare custody of them, and had no authority to deal with them in any way whatever. We do not consider that such custody is "possession" within the meaning of the Contract Act, Section 178.

(3.) But even if the jemadar could be considered as having taken the articles into his own possession, we think the case is clearly within the scope of the second proviso to hat section. The moment that they were removed by him from he box in which they were placed, for the purpose of being pawned to the lawful owner.