Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 9, 1925) reversing decrees of the first class Subordinate Judge of Delhi (December 15, 1922, and April 30, 1923). The appellant brought a suit against the respondent claiming an account as to two sums of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 12,250 entrusted to the respondent as his kamdar (agent) in August, 1918, and January, 1919, respectively. The respondent by his written statement did not admit that he was the appellants kamdar, but so admitted in his evidence at the trial. His case in defence appears from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Subordinate Judge made a preliminary decree for accounts; on the defendant failing to lodge any accounts, he made a final decree for Rs. 12,250, the plaintiff having agreed that the defendant had spent the whole of the first item of Rs. 5000 in his service. The High Court (Martineau and Zafar Ali JJ.), on grounds which appear from the present judgment, reversed the decrees. 1929. Feb. 5. E. B. Raikes for the appellant. It was not established that the appellant had been deposed from being rais, or from the control of the State funds. If he was so deposed it was after the Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 170 ( 1928- 1929) Raja Bhawani Singh V. Maulvi Misbah-Ud-Bin 34 money had been entrusted to the respondent. But in any case the respondent, who admitted that he had been the appellants agent, was bound to account. It is well settled that an agent or bailee cannot deny his principals title Smiths Leading Cases, 12th ed., vol. ii., p. 883, and cases there cited. Although the Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not specifically so provide, there is nothing in it inconsistent with the above well settled principle. The Act is not an exhaustive code as to the matters with which it deals Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. v. Bugwandas. (( 1891) L. R. 18 I. A. 121.) The respondent did not appear. Feb. 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ATKIN. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore who reversed two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi in a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, claiming an account of moneys entrusted to the defendant as agent, and payment of the amount found due. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore who reversed two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi in a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, claiming an account of moneys entrusted to the defendant as agent, and payment of the amount found due. The plaintiff at the time of the transactions in question was the rais or chief of the State of Sheopur-Baroda. In August, 1918, he entrusted the defendant as his agent with the sum of Rs. 5000, and in January, 1919, with the sum of Rs. 12,250 to be applied for the purposes of the plaintiff. The receipt of these sums is admitted. It has been found that the defendant has not accounted for the greater part of the sums so received. The defendant, however, has relied on a plea that the money he received was State money and that the plaintiff had no right to sue, because in January, 1919, he was deposed from his position as rais or chief by the authorities of the State of Gwalior. What the precise relations are between Sheopur-Baroda and Gwalior is a matter which their Lordships deem unnecessary to consider in this case. It appears that up to January 19, 1919, the plaintiff was in possession of the revenues of Sheopur, and controlled their administration. There was some dispute at the hearing whether the money entrusted to the defendant was entrusted to him for public purposes or private purposes of the plaintiff whether it came from the public revenue or from the private purse of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge appears to have inclined to the view that it was a private transaction the High Court held that it concerned public money. In January, the authorities of the State of Gwalior were apparently dissatisfied with the plaintiffs administration and sent to Baroda a superintendent, to control the collection and administration of the revenue. The superintendent appeared with sufficient force to execute his orders, and thenceforward the control of the revenues of the State appears to have passed from the plaintiff to the superintendent. No question arises at all in this case as to the validity of these proceedings. The High Court find that the plaintiff was deposed. If this finding were material their Lordships can discover no evidence to support it. No question arises at all in this case as to the validity of these proceedings. The High Court find that the plaintiff was deposed. If this finding were material their Lordships can discover no evidence to support it. The evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses is to the contrary, while the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is still entitled rais and that all ceremonial functions are performed by him. Finding, however, that the money belonged to the State and that the plaintiff had been deposed before the institution of the suit and had been divested of all control over the State treasury, the learned judges of the High Court find that he had no locus standi to recover the amount due. Even assuming the correctness of the premises their Lordships consider the conclusions incorrect. The principle is well established that an agent entrusted with money or goods by a principal to be applied on his principals account cannot dispute the principals title unless he proves a better title in a third person and that he is defending on behalf of and with the authority of the third person. The same principle controls the relation of bailor and bailee, which may come into existence without the added relation of principal and agent. The agent is certainly in no better position than the bare bailee. It may also be remarked that as between principal and agent there is a contractual position fortified by fiduciary relations, and that one of the contractual terms is that the agent should render an account to the principal of his dealings with the property entrusted to him in the course of the mandate. It is difficult Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 170 ( 1928- 1929) Raja Bhawani Singh V. Maulvi Misbah-Ud-Bin 35 to see how this obligation can in any way disappear except by transfer of the contractual right by novation or operation of law and it may well subsist, notwithstanding that the property proves to belong to some one other than the principal. In the present case, however, it is unnecessary to distinguish between the right to have an account, and the right to receive the balance found to be in the agents hands. The agency is admitted the defendant does not suggest that he is defending for or with the authority of the State of Gwalior. In the present case, however, it is unnecessary to distinguish between the right to have an account, and the right to receive the balance found to be in the agents hands. The agency is admitted the defendant does not suggest that he is defending for or with the authority of the State of Gwalior. He must therefore account to his principal, and leave him to settle his affairs with Gwalior if there is anything to settle. But in this particular case the defendant entirely fails to prove that Gwalior makes any claim to the money, or alleges that there has been any divesting of the plaintiff of his rights contractual or otherwise ; indeed, it is quite consistent with the evidence that Gwalior acquiesces in the plaintiffs dealings with State money before the date at which intervention of the superintendent took place. The learned Subordinate Judge, in their Lordships opinion, came to a correct conclusion he made a preliminary decree that the defendant should account, and after a lapse of some months during which the defendant had failed in spite of opportunity to render any account, he made a decree for the amount claimed, less Rs. 5000 which the plaintiff was willing to treat as expended on his account. Their Lordships are of opinion that the appeal should be allowed, that the decree of the High Court should be set aside with costs here and below, and that the decree of the Subordinate Judge should be restored and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.