JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur dated May 21, 1974 by which he has decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 32,000/- with costs. The plaintiff respondent has Also filed cross objections claiming pendente lite interest @ 12% p.a. and future interest @ 6% p.a. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. On September 26,1968, the plaintiff deposited for storage 555 bags of cotton seeds with the defendant at its branch office at Udaipur and the warehouse receipts No. 40942, 40943 and 40945 were issued to him. The same day, loan of Rs. 18,500/- was obtained by him from the Central Bank of India, Udaipur on the basis of these receipts. After making payment of the loan with interest, the receipts were obtained from the Central Bank of India and were handed over in the Udiapur office of the defendant on November 27, 1968 for taking delivery of the said 555 bags of cotton seeds. The delivery was not given on the pretext that checking was going on in the warehouse and it would be given soon after the checking was over. Despite repeated approach, telegram and notices, delivery was not given. On the contrary, in the replies to the notices it was asserted that the delivery had been given on November 26, 1968. Hence suit for the recovery of Rs. 26,640/- as price of 555 bags of cotton seeds weighing 333 quintals and 5,360/- as interest at the prevalent market rate, total Rs. 32,000/-. 3. In its written statement, the defendant admitted to have received in its Udaipur warehouse 555 bags of cotton seeds on September 26,1968 for storage purpose from the plaintiff and to have issued the said four receipts. It was admitted that the receipts were surrendered by and telegram and notices were received from the plaintiff. The remaining allegations of the plaint were denied. Its case is that after surrender of the above warehouse receipts, delivery of 555 bags of cotton seeds was given on September 26, 1968. 4. It was admitted that the receipts were surrendered by and telegram and notices were received from the plaintiff. The remaining allegations of the plaint were denied. Its case is that after surrender of the above warehouse receipts, delivery of 555 bags of cotton seeds was given on September 26, 1968. 4. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Trial Court held that the delivery of said 555 bags of cotton seeds was not given to the plaintiff by the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 12% on the said amount of Rs. 26,640/- as compensation and accordingly decreed the suit as said above. 5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the defendant appellant that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, the plaintiff admittedly had surrendered four warehouse receipts and this fact was not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. He also contended that the learned Trial Court was not justified to award interest @ 12% on the costs of 555 bags of cotton seeds even if it held that said bags were not delivered. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal. He contended that the warehouse receipts are surrendered in the office in order to get delivery order prepared and on the basis of the delivery order and the receipt of the payment of war a house charges, the goods are released from the godown. 7. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether 555 bags of cotton seeds were released from the warehouse, Udaipur and delivered to the plaintiff on November, 26, 1968. From the evidence on record the following facts and circumstances are well proved : (a) Four original warehouse receipts (Form No.7) (admittedly surrendered by the plaintiff) and the application for release-cum-delivery order (Form No.6) were not produced during the trial by the defendant despite the fact that they were requisitioned at the instance of the plaintiff. (b) Photostat copies Ex.-14 and 15 of these receipts show that their last para relating to the date of delivery, quantity released, signatures and quantity due on receipt (balance) are blank. (b) Photostat copies Ex.-14 and 15 of these receipts show that their last para relating to the date of delivery, quantity released, signatures and quantity due on receipt (balance) are blank. (c) columns relating to description of goods released and delivered, balance of stock, initials of the Godown Keeper, initials of checking officer and reference of ledger in the Stock Register (Form No.8) Ex.-8, columns relating to particulars of payment made by depositor towards warehousing charges, delivery order, initial of Godown Keeper of the Depositors Ledger (Form No.9) Ex.-16 and 19, columns relating to the date of cancellation and signature of warehouse man in the Register of Issue and Cancel (Form No.10) Ex.-A.5 and A.7 are blank. (d) The incharge, warehouse, Udaipur, Balvir Singh, lodged report Ex.-13 in the Police Station, Dhanmandi, Udaipur on November 26,1968 clearly stating that he learnt in the mandi on 25.11.68 that theft of goods including 2155 bags of cotton seeds had taken place from the godowns of the warehouse, Udaipur. On November 27, 1968, Shri Roop Chand Mathur, D.W.-2, Managing Director, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Jaipur also lodged report Ex. A/1 in the same police station. There is a reference of the earlier report Ex.-13 in this report Ex.-A/1. The theft of 2155 bags of cotton seeds have been reiterated in this report Ex.-A/1. Chunni Das D.W: 1 admits in his cross-examination that theft had taken place about two days before the plaintiff Chogamal P.W.-4 came for the release of his said 555 bags of cotton seeds. (e) During those days, Prakash Chandra Mangla D.W.-3 was Supervisor, Balvir Singh was the incharge and Chunnidas D.W.-1 was the Class IV employee of the Warehouse, Udaipur. Balbir Singh has not been produced. All these three employees were suspended in connection with the theft which took place in the godown of the warehouse, Udaipur and they were subsequently removed. Challan was filed against them. Prakash Chandra Mangla D.W.-3 admits in his cross-examination that the thief Madan Gopal used to pay Rs. 150/- p.m. to Balbir Singh and out of this amount Balbir Singh used to pay Rs. 50/- to him per month. He further disclosed that Madan Gopal used to provide wine and eatables to him and Balbir Singh. (f) The plaintiff did not make payment of the charges due to the. warehouse in respect of the said 555 bags of cotton seeds. 50/- to him per month. He further disclosed that Madan Gopal used to provide wine and eatables to him and Balbir Singh. (f) The plaintiff did not make payment of the charges due to the. warehouse in respect of the said 555 bags of cotton seeds. (g) The said 555 bags of cotton seeds belonging to the plaintiff were kept in the two godowns taken on rent by the defendant from their owners. The delivery of 555 bags of cotton seeds were effected by removing defendant's locks and getting put the plaintiff's lock on them (vide statement of Chunni Das D.W.-1 and Prakash Chandra Mangla D.W.3). Nothing has been said by the defendant's witnesses as to who paid rent of these godowns after the plaintiff's locks were put on them. The plaintiff Chhogamal P.W.-4 has categorically denied to have paid the rent of these godowns. The last portion of the report Ex.-A/1 runs as under : Page No. 410. (h) On November 27, 1968, the plaintiff gave telegram Ex.-5 to the defendant to the effect that goods of his four receipts not delivered as yet and to arrange delivery immediately. On November 28, 1968 and December 2, 1968 notices Ex.-6 and 8 respectively were sent to the Manager, Warehouse, Udiapur through registered post and on December 2, 1968 notice Ex.-7 was given to the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Jaipur through registered A.D. post. No reply of the telegram was given by the defendant, Reply Ex.-A/3 of the letter Ex.-6 bears the signatures of Shri Roop Chand Mathur D.W.-2 of December 5, 19(8. The envelope Ex.-13 bears the postal seal of 7.12.68. It is stated in reply Ex. A/3 that the letter dated November 28, 1968 Ex.-6 was received on November 29, 1968. Reply Ex.-A/4 of letter dated December 2, 1968 Ex.-7 was given on December 30, 1968. No reason has been given for this inordinate delay in replying these notices. (i) Prakash Chandra Mangla D.W.-3 has disclosed in his cross-examination that when the disputed goods were released from the godown of the warehouse, Udaipur neither he nor Balbir Singh was present. Chunni Das D.W.-1 admits that he did not take any receipt when the goods were released from the godown by the plaintiff Chhogamal. (i) Prakash Chandra Mangla D.W.-3 has disclosed in his cross-examination that when the disputed goods were released from the godown of the warehouse, Udaipur neither he nor Balbir Singh was present. Chunni Das D.W.-1 admits that he did not take any receipt when the goods were released from the godown by the plaintiff Chhogamal. (j) Chunni Das D.W.-1 admits in his cross-examination that he was not given any delivery order for releasing the said 555 bags of cotton seeds. 8. It would be relevant to quote the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Warehousing Act, 1958 and Rajasthan Warehousing Rules, 1960 : (a) Section 16(1) of the Act runs as under : "16.-Delivery of goods.-(l) Every warehouseman in the absence of reasonable excuse shall, without unnecessary delay, delivery the goods deposited in his warehouse to the depositor on demand made by him and surrender of the receipt duly discharged and payment of all charges due to the warehousemen." (b) Rules 11, 13(3), 27 and 31(a) of the Rules runs as under : "11. Application for deposit and delivery of goods to warehouseman . The application for deposit of goods shall be made to a warehouseman in Form No. 5 and the application for delivery of goods shall be made in Form No. 6. 13(3) Delivery requirements.-(a) Instructions for delivery or transfer of goods shall always be in writing and signed by the depositor or his authorised agent. (b) When a negotiable receipt has been issued on goods covered by that receipt shall be delivered unless the receipt properly endorsed is surrendered for cancellation or for endorsement of partial delivery therein. (c) Should a negotiable receipt be lost or destroyed, goods covered by it shall not be delivered until the person lawfully entitled to possession of goods obtains and surrenders a duplicate receipt. The duplicate will be issued on such terms and conditions and on furnishing a bond to indemnity a warehouseman against any liability as provided under the Act and the Rules. 27. Maintenance of books and records etc. Every warehouseman shall maintain records and account books in respect of his business and shall for this purpose use forms, if any, enjoyed by the prescribed authority. He shall, in particular, maintain : (1) A stock register in Form No. 8 (2) A ledger for each depositor in Form No. 9 (3) The receipts issued and cancelled in Form No. 10 (4) .... He shall, in particular, maintain : (1) A stock register in Form No. 8 (2) A ledger for each depositor in Form No. 9 (3) The receipts issued and cancelled in Form No. 10 (4) .... ..... .. 31. Duty to deliver. A warehouseman in the absence of any lawful excuse shall deliver the goods referred to in the warehouse receipt : (a) In the case of a negotiable receipt, to the bearer thereof upon demand made by the bearer and during business hours, after (i) satisfying the warehouseman's lien, (ii) the receipt is surrendered with such endorsements as are necessary for the negotiation of the receipt, and (iii) acknowledging in writing the delivery of the goods." (d) Delivery Order (Form No.6) runs as under : Delivery Order Warehouse at........ To (The Warehouseman) ............ ............ Dear Sir, Please deliver the goods described below to self or to..........whose specimen signature is attached below. These goods were deposited with you on .......The Warehouse Receipt bearing printed No......Dated ........ granted by you accompanies. Description of goods No. of packages etc. (both in words and figures) Weight or/and measurement (both in words & figures) Market price Special Remarks if any Description of goods to be delivered Received the above goods in...........condition. Place Date Delivered WAREHOUSEMAN Yours faithfully, DEPOSITOR" (d) The last part of Warehouse Receipt (Form No.7) states as under : "The goods mentioned below are hereby released from this receipt for delivery from warehouse. Any unreleased balance of the goods is subject to a lien for unpaid charges and advances on the released portion. Date Quantity released Signature Quantity due on Receipt" 9. The application for delivery of goods in Form No.6 is given by the Depositor and after the release of the goods he is required to acknowledge the receipt of the same. Necessary entry is also made in the last paragraph of the Receipt (Form No. 7) under the signature of the Warehouseman after the goods are released. In the Stock Register (Form No. 8), columns No.4, 5 and 6 relate to the description of goods released or delivered, column No.7 relates to the balance and columns No. 9 and 10 require initials of the Godown Keeper and Checking Officer. In the Stock Register (Form No. 8), columns No.4, 5 and 6 relate to the description of goods released or delivered, column No.7 relates to the balance and columns No. 9 and 10 require initials of the Godown Keeper and Checking Officer. In Depositor's ledger (Form No. 9) Column No. 4 relates to the description of the goods released, Column No. 6 relates to the particulars of the payment made by the Depositor, Column No. 7 relates to delivery order and Column No. 8 requires initial of the Godown Keeper. In register of Receipts issued and cancelled, Column No. 5 requires the signature of the Warehouseman. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid evidence that the plaintiff only surrendered four warehouse receipts in original to Balbir Singh Incharge Warehouse, Udaipur and did nothing more as required under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules. In view of this evidence and provisions of law, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant has utterly failed to prove that 555 bags of cotton seeds were returned to the plaintiff. There was no question of returning the said 555 bags of cotton seeds on 26.11.68 when all the bags of cotton seeds (2155) were stolen away from the godowns earlier. To say the least, the witnesses of the defendant have spoken white lie when they say that 555 bags were returned to the plaintiff on 26.11.68. 11. There is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the defendant appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing damages on the value of goods. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed an amount of Rs. 5,360/- as interest till the date of filing of the suit as compensation relying upon M/s. Trojan & Company v. Nagappa, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 235. 12. The plaintiff respondent has filed cross-objections, claiming pendente lite interest @ 12% and future interest @ 6%. After the decision of the Trial Court, the Interest Act, 1978 has come into force and provisions of Section 34, Civil Procedure Code have also been amended. In view of these provisions of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is als9 entitled to get pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, the cross-objections deserve to be allowed to this extent. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. In view of these provisions of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is als9 entitled to get pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, the cross-objections deserve to be allowed to this extent. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross-objection is allowed with costs. The defendant will also make payment of pendente lite and future interest on the decretal amount of Rs. 32,000/- @ 6% per annum.Appeal dismissed *******