Kaliaperumal Vs. Visalakshmi (1938) AIR 1938 Mad 32

Kaliaperumal Vs. Visalakshmi (1938)

Fact :

        In this case, a lady employed a Goldsmith for melting old jewellery to make some new ornaments/ Jewels. Every evening she used to receive the half made jewels from the goldsmith and put them into a box which was left in a room in the goldsmith's house which she retained the key. One morning she found that jewellery had been stolen. She sued the goldsmith for the loss of property.

Held :

           Madras High Court held that the goldsmith was not liable for the loss because there was re-delivery of the jewels to the Lady and they were not in possession of the goldsmith when during one night they were stolen.  (Must read Why Law protects Possession ?)
   
            Delivery is an essential element of bailment and merely leaving the box in the room of Goldsmith while she retained key. did not constitute delivery within the meaning of section 149 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.


See also 

1)  Classification of Bailment

2)  Difference between Bailment and Pledge

3)  Difference between Bailment and Agency

4) Difference between Bailment and Contract of sale

5) Rights and Duties of Agent (Agency: Indian Contract Act,1872)