SRINIVASACHARI, J. : -

This revision has come before a Bench on a reference made by one of us (the Chief Justice) in view of the conflict of decisions on the interpretation of the provisions of S. 77. of the Indian Railways Act, Act 9 of 1890.

2. This revision arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the Union of India owning the Southern Railway for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52-1-0 on account of the price of 3 sarees which were missing at the time of the delivery of the goods consigned to the plaintiff at Nandyal by a cloth merchant at Trichinopally.

3. The plaintiffs allegation was that 46 sarees were consigned by the merchant at Trichinopally and the consignment, when it was delivered, contained only 43 sarees. The claim was for compensation for shortage of delivery. The defendant Railway inter alia contended that as the plaintiff failed to give the notice as required by S. 77 of the Indian Railways Act, within six months of the delivery of the goods to the Railway he was not entitled to any compensation. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act reads as follows :

"A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carrie