P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is dicected against judgmentand decree of Additional District Judge dated 7/11/1973 by whichhe had accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28/04/1973 passed by Sub-Judge decreeing the suit of the appellant forrecovery of Rs. 7,595. 28 paise with costs. ( 2 ) THE appellant died during the pendency of the proceedings andhis legal heirs namely Smt. Devinder Kaur Bagga and Smt. Virindcr Kataria,were brought on record but later on one of the LRs has also died and hersole legal heir namely Smt. Virinder Kaur was already on the record and thename of deceased Devinder Kaur Bagga was struck out. ( 3 ) FACTS, in brief, are that the plaintiff, who was a timber merchant hadsupplied on hire centering material comprising of planks 6 brand new 400 innumber on 2/07/1962 and another 400 on 21/07/1962 and pallu 8 eachhundred in number on first date and 150 more on the second date. Theplanks were at the rental of Rs. 2. 00 per diem while the pallus were at therental of Rs. 1. 50 per diem. On 12/12/1962, 230 planks and on 15/01/1963, 246 planks were returned to the plaintiff and similarly 120pallus on the first date and 100 pallus on the second date were returnedleaving the balance with the respondent i. e. 324 planks and 30 pallus. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that Harish Chanderchopra, respondent/defendant had while taking the said material on hirerepresented that it was required for Joint Hindu Family firm of M/s. Rajaram Chopra and Sons of which his father was the Karta. The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 5,489. 60 paise as hire charges forthe period upto 22/02/1964 in which he impleaded the said firm andthe father and son as defendants. Ultimately, it was held in that suit by thesub-Judge that in fact there existed no such firm and defendant namely. Harish Chander Chopra, had taken the said centering material on hire andhe alone was liable for the hiring charges. It appears that in that suit alsoharish Chander Chopra had taken the plea that the centering material hadbeen lost. The Sub-Judge decreed the suit for the said amount on 29/05/1968 disbelieving the plea of the defendant that the said centering materialhad been lost. It appears that in that suit alsoharish Chander Chopra had taken the plea that the centering material hadbeen lost. The Sub-Judge decreed the suit for the said amount on 29/05/1968 disbelieving the plea of the defendant that the said centering materialhad been lost. ( 5 ) THE appeal filed by defendant against that decree was dismissedby an Additional District Judge on 28/04/1969 with similar findings. Itwas mentioned in the judgment of the Additional District Judge that in casein any suit brought for future hiring charges a plea is taken by the defendantthat the centering material given on hire had been lost, then the Court willdecide that plea on its own merits. ( 6 ) THE present suit was brought for recovery of hiring charges again,mentioning that the hiring charge? are due w. e. f. 22/02/196 4/05/1969 amounting to Rs. 13. 215. 31 paise but claim was restricted tors. 7. 595. 28 paise which covered the hire charges for the last three yearspreceding the date of the filing of the suit. ( 7 ) THE respondent/defendant again took up the same pleas as he hadraised while resisting the first suit which pleas were negatived against therespondent in the first suit and those findings operate as res-judicata, so therespondent/defendant cannot now take the plea that the centering materialwas not taken bv him on hire. He lias also taken the plea that the suit wasbarred by limitation but the suit was within time in respect of the hirecharges for three years period preceding the filing of the suit. ( 8 ) THE plea was again taken by the respondent/defendant that thecentering material bad been lost and thus suit for recovery of hire charges isnot maintainable. The learned Sub-Judge again gave a finding on meritthat respondent/defendant has failed to prove that the centering materialsupplied on hire had been lost. He held that the suit was within time andthe plea of the defendant that the material was supplied to the firm and thesuit was not maintainable without joining the said firm as one of the defendants was not open to the defendant in view of the findings given in theprevious case which operate as res judicata. He decreed the suit with costs. He decreed the suit with costs. ( 9 ) THE first appellate Court, however, while affirming the findings onother issues came to the conclusion that the suit for recovery of hire chargeswas not maintainable inasmuch as the plea had been taken by the defendant that centering material had since been lost and thus, he. basing hisjudgment on the ratio laid down in the case of Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India, A. I. R. I 958 Supreme Court 274 held that plaintiff ought tohave brought a suit for recovery of damages i. e. the market price of thecentering material supplied to the defendant. So, he allowed the appeal andset aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court. ( 10 ) IT is quite evident from the evidence which has been discussed bythe first Court that the respondent/defendant had failed to prove that in factthe centering material bad been lost. I need not discuss that evidence againbecause that was a finding of fact which was not negatived even by the firstappellate Court. ( 11 ) THE short question which arises for decision is that even if thedefendant/respondent had failed to prove that the centering material suppliedon hire had been lost, could in law it be urged that the hiring contract stoodrepudiated and thus the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to recover thehire charges for the relevant period and he was legally bound to sue thedefendant/respondent for recovery of the value of the goods ? ( 12 ) IN absence of any written contract between the parties specifyingany particular period for which the material had been given on hire. the contract for hire would he deemed to have continued till it was repudiated byeither of the parties. Tn anv oral contract of hire where terms are notsettled as to the period for which the contract was to continue the hirer aswell as the owner could intmiate the intention to terminate the contract. Onsuch termination taking place, the hirer is bound to return the hired materialto the owner find on his failure to return such material, the owner wouldhave remedies open to him of petting the damages for detention of the goodsor getting the value of the poods. The position of a hirer becomes the position of a bailee on termination of a contract of hire. Undersection 160 ofthe Indian Contract Act. The position of a hirer becomes the position of a bailee on termination of a contract of hire. Undersection 160 ofthe Indian Contract Act. 1872 it is the duty of the bailee to return or deliveraccording to the bailor s directions, the goods bailed, without demand, assoon as the time for which they were bailed has expired or the objects forwhich they were bailed had been accomplished. Section 161 stipulates thatif. by the deffault of the bailee. the goods are not returned, delivered ortendered at the proper time. he is responsible to the bailor for anv loss,destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time. But most important in the present rase is the principle stated as follows by Pollock Wrightin the book titiled as "possession in the Common Law" page 132 : "any act or disposition which is wholly repugnant to or as itwere an absolute disclaimer of the holding as bailee revests thetailor s right to possession and therefore also his immediate right tomaintain trover or detinue. . . . . . " ( 13 ) IN the present case, it is obvious that defendant s plea, althoughmay not have been proved, that he had lost the goods which were suppliedto him on hire would amount to repudiation of the contract of hire givingthe cause of action to the appellant/plaintiff either to bring an action introver or detinue. The action in trover would amount to claiming the valueof the material supplied to the hirer. Action in detinue would amount toclaiming usufruct or the charges of the material remaining in possession ofthe hire. These were the principles which were enunciated by the Supremecourt in the aforesaid case of Dhian Singh Sobha Singh (supra ). ( 14 ) IN para50 of the judgment, it was laid down by the Supremecourt that the disposition in law in regard to the measure of damages in anaction for wrongful conversion is far from clear and the law in regard to thesame cannot be said to be perfectly well-settled. But whatever be the positionin regard to the same in actions for wrongful conversion, one thing is quiteclear that in actions for wrongful detention the measure of damages can onlybe the value of the goods as at the date of the verdict or judgment. But whatever be the positionin regard to the same in actions for wrongful conversion, one thing is quiteclear that in actions for wrongful detention the measure of damages can onlybe the value of the goods as at the date of the verdict or judgment. It washeld that the tort is complete the moment the goods are wrongfully converted by the defendant and no question can arise in those cases of any continuing wrong. However, in case of a wrongful detention, the cause of actionmay certainly arise the moment there is a refusal by the defendant to redeliver the goods on demand made by the plaintiff in that behalf. It wasfurther laid down that even though the cause of action thus arises on arefusal to re-deliver the said goods to the plaintiff the wrongful detention ofthe goods is a continuing wrong and the wrongful detention continues rightupto the lime when the defendant re-delivers the goods either of his ownvolition or under compulsion of a decree of the Court. The Supreme furtheropined that this distinction between actions for wrongful conversion andthose for wrongful detention that in the former the plaintiff abandons histitle to the goods and claim damages from the defendant on the basis thatthe goods have been wrongfully converted by the defendant either to hisown use or have been wrongfully dealt with by him. However, in the lattercase, the plaintiff asserts his title to the goods all the time and sues thedefendant for specific delivery of the chattel or for re-delivery of the goodsbailed to him on the basis that he has a title on those goods, it was heldthat the claim for re-delivery of the goods by the defendant to him is basedon his title in those goods not only at the time when the action is filed butright up to the period when the same are re-delivered by the defendant tohim. ( 15 ) I he Supreme Court lastly laid down that the wrongful detentionthus being a tort which continues all the time until the re-delivery of thegoods by the defendant to the plaintiff, the only verdict or judgment whichthe Court can give in actions for wrongful detention is that the defendant dodeliver to the plaintiff the goods thus wrongfully detained by him or pay inthe alternative the value thereof which can only be ascertained as on thedate of verdict or judgment in favour of the plaintiff. ( 16 ) IT was also held by the Supreme Court that it is well settled thatin an action for wrongful detention, the plaintiff is entitled, besides the redelivery of the chattel or the payment of its value in the alternative, todamages for such wrongful detention. ( 17 ) SO. assuming for the sake of arguments that the hire contractstood repudiated by the defendant/respondent, even then the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to recovery of damages for wrongful detention of the goodsby the respondent/defendant. Mere fact that the plaintiff had not in so manywords claimed damages for wrongful detention of the goods does not meanthat the hire charges which he was claiming should not be termed asdamages for wrongful detention of the goods by the defendant/respondent. ( 18 ) SO, the appellate Court was not right in dismissing the suit ofthe plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff ought to have brought only a suitfor recovery of the value of the goods and not claiming any hire charges. The claim of hire charges could be considered to be claim for damages forwrongful detention of the goods by the respondent/defendant. It may bethat plaintiff may not be entitled to now bring a fresh suit for recovery ofthe value of the goods as the cause of action for seeking the value of thesaid goods had arisen to the plaintiff when the defendant/respondent hadin the earlier suit taken the plea that the goods had been lost which wouldimpliedly mean that the contract of hir stood terminated by the defendant. But the present suit for recovery of hire charges should not have been dismissed as the said suit was within limitation and plaintiff could demand thedamages for wrongful detention of the goods by the defendant. The amountclaimed as hire charges hence can be held to be due to the plaintiff fromthe defendant as damages for wrongful detention of the goods. The learnedfirst appellate Court was thus not legally right in dismissing the suit. ( 19 ) THE repudiation of the hire contract took place when respondentdefendant filed the written statement in 1966. This present suit is filed within three years, so the same is within time. ( 20 ) I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of thefirst appellate Court and decree the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,595,28 paisewith costs as was done by the lower Court. This present suit is filed within three years, so the same is within time. ( 20 ) I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of thefirst appellate Court and decree the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,595,28 paisewith costs as was done by the lower Court. The appellant/plaintiff shall alsobe entitled to future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of thisappeal till realisation. The appellant shall be entitled to the cost of thisappeal as well as the cost of first appellate Court.