JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The plaintiff, the Paliyam Estate, owned an elephant called Chandramathi. She was taken on hire by the defendant under a contract, according to which she was to be worked on alternate days for one month, the hire being Rs. 30/- per work day. Though the plaintiff was paid Rs. 450/- in advance as for 15 work days; she was returned to the plaintiff only after the 5th July, 1952. Alleging that she had worked for 35 days, the plaintiff sued for the sum of Rs. 600/- by way of damages or as hire for the excess number of work days. The defendant contended that he had custody of Chandramathi only for 30 days and she had worked only for 15 days. The trial court held in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit, and on appeal the Subordinate Judge found that Chandramathi had worked for 33 days and gave a decree to the plaintiff for eighteen work days at Rs. 30/- per day. The defendant has come up in second appeal. 2. The Subordinate Judge has analysed the course of correspondence and drawn proper inferences, so that in this judgment in second appeal, it is not necessary to cover the ground in all details. It was undisputed that Chandramathi began working on the 21st of April, 1952 in Servani Hills, the workspot. The period of 30 days expired on the 21st May, 1952. Basing upon a report of the keeper Narayanan Nair that Chandramathi was weak, the plaintiff's manager addressed the Collector who was managing the plaintiff's estate at the time. In that letter which was dated the 4th June, 1952, he had stated that Chandramathi had already worked on 18 days. On the 6th June, 1952, the Collector wrote to the defendant demanding return of Chandramathi and payment of the hire upto date. On the 11th June, 1952, the defendant sent a letter to the Collector which goes against his case on almost every point arising for decision. In it, he admitted that Chandramathi was still working for him, that the report made by the keeper that she was in a week condition was not true, and that she was quite alright, and asked the Collector, if necessary to send some responsible persons to satisfy themselves as to her condition. Incidentally he complained that the keepers were not attentive to their duties. Incidentally he complained that the keepers were not attentive to their duties. At the same time he reminded the Collector that he had applied for a long term lease of Chandramathi and that he was still awaiting orders. This proves conclusively that Chandramathi was being put to work even on the 11th June, 1952. The report that she was weak was therefore not true; at any rate she was not so weak as to be incapable of doing any work. This gives the lie direct to his plea, that Chandramathi had worked only for 15 days in all. On the 13th June, 1952, the plaintiff's manager demanded return of Chandramathi. As it happened, Chandramathi was on the workspot till the 28th June, 1952, and reached Mullurkara en route to her destination, only on the 5th or the 6th July, 1952. 3. The Munsiff made a wrong approach to the case in thinking, that the burden of proving the number of days for which Chandramathi had worked, was on the plaintiff. The defendant having had custody of the elephant, the number of days during which she had worked, and her condition at the time, were all facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, and so the burden of proof has to be borne by him. The defendant did not adduce such evidence. The account book, Ext. II series produced by him shows, that the defendant had been incurring expenses on account of Chandramathi's maintenance, even paying her mahouts up to the 23rd June, 1952. In spite of demand, the defendant returned Chandramathi not before the 28th June, 1952. It was his clear duty as bailee to surrender the elephant on the expiry of the period of bailment stipulated in the agreement. It is quite clear on the terms of the letter of the 11th June, 1952, adverted to above, that he was bargaining for a long term arrangement, retaining the elephant with him, even undertaking to pay future hire. 4. The Subordinate Judge was justified in differing from the Munsiff and holding that Chandramathi had worked on alternate clays till the 28th June, 1952. This made up 33 work days, being in excess of the stipulated 15 work days by eighteen. 5. 4. The Subordinate Judge was justified in differing from the Munsiff and holding that Chandramathi had worked on alternate clays till the 28th June, 1952. This made up 33 work days, being in excess of the stipulated 15 work days by eighteen. 5. In this court the learned counsel for the defendant advanced a contention, that there being no provision in the agreement for the payment of hire after the expiry of the period of 30 days, the decree in that behalf cannot be supported. Under Section 180 of the Indian Contract Act, the duty was on the defendant as bailee to return the elephant at the expiry of the period of bailment. The contract being silent as to the consequences of wrongful detention of the elephant after the expiry of the period, the claim in the plaint was put also, as for damages for wrongful detention, the measure of damages being the hire agreed to be paid My attention was invited for the plaintiff, to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1958 SC 274 ) which related to two trucks which were taken on hire and were not returned. The plaintiff's right to recover not only the trucks or their value, but also damages on account of wrongful detention was recognised. At page 287 their Lordships observed : "It is well settled that in an action for wrongful detention, the plaintiff is entitled besides the redelivery of the chattel or payment of its value in the alternative, also to damages for such wrongful detention. There is however no definite criterion laid down by the decided cases as to what the measure of such damages should be." After referring to the rule in Strand Electric & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Brisford Entertainments (1952 (2) QB 246) that where an owner of land is wrongfully kept out, the wrongdoer must pay a fair rental value or a reasonable hire, the court observed at page 288; "In the case before us the appellants were the owners of the two trucks and they used to hire out the same to others. Ltd. v. Brisford Entertainments (1952 (2) QB 246) that where an owner of land is wrongfully kept out, the wrongdoer must pay a fair rental value or a reasonable hire, the court observed at page 288; "In the case before us the appellants were the owners of the two trucks and they used to hire out the same to others. Hiring out of the trucks was a regular business of theirs and if the said trucks had been redelivered by the respondent to them on August 1, 1942, they would have immediately put the same to the user, viz., that of hiring them out to outsiders and earning thereby a certain sum by way of rent for each truck per day." Their Lordships discounted the argument, that it might be that the trucks would not have been used on all days, that on some days they might have been lying idle or under repairs; these in their view were not quite relevant. They concluded; "If the learned Judges of the High Court had on taking all the circumstances into consideration arrived at the figure of Rs. 5953 as the amount of hire which could have been reasonably earned by the appellants in the event of the redelivery of the trucks by the respondent to them on August 1, 1942, their judgment in this behalf could not have been successfully impeached." In this case the question in the present form was not specifically raised and there is no evidence as to any other measure of damages. So the hire that was stipulated under the contract, may be held to be a just measure of damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled on account of the detention of the elephant by the defendant after the 21st May, 1952, which was undoubtedly wrongful. The result is, that the second appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs.