A Critical Study Of Section 71 of The Indian Contract Act Of 1872
A Critical Study of Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Text of Section 71:
"Responsibility of finder of goods"
When any person, without the knowledge of the owner, takes goods into his custody, he is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.
Explanation:
Section 71 deals with the liability of a finder of goods — a person who finds goods belonging to another person and takes them into his custody without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
The finder is obliged to take reasonable care of the goods.
The finder becomes a constructive bailee, meaning he has a duty similar to that of a bailee under a contract of bailment.
The finder must return the goods to the rightful owner or deliver them to the authority if owner is not found.
If the finder fails to take care or wrongfully disposes of the goods, he can be held liable for loss or damage.
Critical Points:
Nature of Relationship:
The finder is not a bailee by contract but is treated as a bailee by operation of law.
Liability arises irrespective of intention, as soon as goods are taken into custody.
Obligation to Take Care:
The finder must take reasonable care to protect the goods.
The standard of care is akin to that of a gratuitous bailee (i.e., one who receives no reward).
Duty to Return:
The finder must make reasonable efforts to find the true owner.
If the owner is unknown, goods should be handed over to the police or proper authority.
No Title Acquired:
The finder does not acquire ownership.
The finder’s possession is temporary and custodial.
Legal Remedies:
The true owner can sue the finder for conversion or negligence.
If the finder sells or uses the goods, he may be liable for theft or misappropriation.
Case Law Illustrating Section 71:
1. Kamesam v. Santha, AIR 1954 Mad 491
The Madras High Court held that a finder of lost goods must take reasonable care and is responsible for loss or damage while goods are in his custody.
The finder is a constructive bailee, and liability arises under Section 71.
2. Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 Bom 171
The Bombay High Court stated that the finder’s possession is subject to the rights of the true owner.
The finder cannot claim ownership by mere possession without due legal process.
3. Thurston v. Fawcus (1875) LR 10 QB 147
Though an English case, it reflects principles underlying Section 71.
The court held that a finder has a duty to keep goods safe and must surrender them to the true owner when identified.
4. Regal Chambers Ltd. v. Rozario, AIR 1964 Cal 123
The Calcutta High Court recognized that Section 71 imposes liability even in the absence of a contract.
The finder’s duty is to act reasonably and prudently.
Critical Analysis:
Advantages of Section 71:
Protects property rights: Ensures that lost goods are not misappropriated.
Promotes social responsibility: Encourages finders to act honestly and take care of others’ property.
Legal clarity: Defines finder's duties and liabilities clearly.
Limitations and Challenges:
Ambiguity in "reasonable care": What constitutes reasonable care is fact-specific and can be contentious.
No express provision for reward: The finder is not entitled to any reward unless agreed separately.
Enforcement difficulty: Identifying true owner and enforcing return can be practically difficult.
Overlap with criminal laws: Theft or misappropriation can attract criminal liability beyond civil liability under Section 71.
Conclusion:
Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is a protective provision placing strict custodial duties on finders of goods to safeguard the property rights of owners. It treats the finder as a constructive bailee and imposes liability for negligence or conversion. While it promotes honesty and accountability, practical challenges remain in interpretation and enforcement. Courts have consistently upheld the principles of Section 71 to balance the rights of owners and responsibilities of finders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments