ABDUL AZIZ BEPARI AND MUKUNDA CHANDRA SAHA; MUKUNDA CHANDRA SAHA Vs. JOGENDRA KRISHNA RAY; JOGENDRA KRISHNA RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the price of jute supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The jute, while it was in the custody of the defendants in their godowns, caught fire and was burnt, and the question is whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are to bear the loss. The determination of that question depends upon whether or not property in the goods had passed to the defendants, before they were destroyed by fire.

(2.) The plaintiff and the defendants carried on business in jute at Chandpur, where there are many big firms who deal in jute. The plaintiffs, who are called Fariahs in the locality used, to purchase loose jute from dealers (beparis) and supply it to the defendants firm.

(3.) The plaintiffs in their plaint set up an express contract with the defendants, the terms whereof are stated to be as follows: That the plaintiffs would purchase loose jute for the defendants during the jute season, and that the latter would take the said jute from the plaintiffs upon weigh- ment, and would pay the price of the same according to the market-rate. The defendants would advance money from time to time for purchase of jute, and would pay the price of jute after the close of the karbar after deducting the amounts so advanced. The plaintiffs would buy jute and store the same in the godowns of the defendants and under their care, and report to the defendants the goods stored on the very day they are stored. The plaintiffs would have no right to the goods so stored, nor would they be entitled to remove them from the godowns of the defendants, and that having once stored the goods in the godowns of the defendants, the plaintiffs would retain no other right or interest in them than the right to receive the price of the said goods, and that the ownership in the goods would pass to the defendants.