JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J. :— The stakes are not high in this appeal - it is valued at Rs. 1606-8-0 - but it raises two rather interesting questions. Does the post office when it accepts a postal article for transmission act as an agent of the sender of the article? And where the postal article is sent from India to an addressee in a foreign country, does the government of that country act as a sub-agent for transmission of the article?

2. The questions arise on the following facts. The respondent had instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, Moradabad, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1606-8-0 from the Union of India (Post and Telegraph Department) alleging that during the period from August 31, 1949 to September 17, 1949 the plaintiff despatched from the Moradabad City Post Office thirty value-payable parcels to addressees in Lahore and Rawalpindi in Pakistan, that they received the articles and paid the entire amount payable, but the defendant Union of India failed to pay the sum to the plaintiff. The Union of India in their written statement admitted that the aforesaid articles were despatched by the plaintiff as claimed and that their value was recovered in Pakistan, but the Union of India did not receive the sum from the Pakistan Government as the money order service between India and Pakistan remained suspended from September 19, 1949, and this was the reason why the sum could not be paid to the plaintiff. Reference was made to Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and it was claimed that the said provision absolved the Union of India from liability. Section 34 reads as follows:

"The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that, subject to the other provisions of this Act and to the payment of fees at such rates as may be fixed by the notification, as sum of money specified in writing at the time of posting by the sender of a postal article shall be recoverable on the delivery thereof from the addressee, and that the sum, so recovered, shall be paid to the sender :

Provided that the Central Government shall not incur any liability in respect of the sum specified for recovery unless and until that sum has been received from the addressee.

Explanation :- Postal articles sent in accordance with the provisions of this section may be described as "value-payable postal articles."

It was further contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs claim, made for the first time on October 22, 1950 which was beyond one year from the date of the booking of the value-payable articles, was not admissible under R. 102 of the Rules framed under the Indian Post Office Act which fixed a time limit of one year "from the date of the posting of the articles" for making such claims.

3. It also appears from the written statement that the postal authorities had assured the plaintiff that his claim would be settled on receipt of the money from Pakistan after the money order service between the two countries was resumed.

4. Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Complaint Inspector, deposing for the defendant Union of India on April 15, 1953 stated that "since 19-9-1949 the money order system with Pakistan was stopped on account of devaluation and it still stands stopped, the V. P. sent by the plaintiff was realised in Pakistan after 19-9-1949".

5. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs claim was barred under Rule 102 and was also not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act. The first appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit on the finding that Rule 102 in so far as it fixed a limit of one year for making the claim was ultra vires the Act; it was also held that the fact that Union of India had not been able to realise the sum from the Pakistan Government was a matter which concerned the two governments and not the plaintiff whose claim could not be defeated because of non-payment by the Pakistan Government.

6. The High Court on appeal by the Union