( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this second appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit out of which this appeal arises.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's in OS. No. 581 of 1967 on the file of the Munsiff, Tumkur, instituted the said suit for recovery of damages or compensation for loss of goods which had been consigned by defendant-3 under Railway Receipt no. 344699 Invoice No. C-42 dated 18-9-1965 at Wadi Bunder Railway station, Bombay, in favour of the plaintiffs. The place of destination of in goods wag mentioned as Bangalore Citv Railway Station in the said railway Receipt. Defendant-3 sent the Railway Receipt to the plaintiffs through the State Bank of Mysore, Tumkur Branch, Tumkur. The plaintiffs paid the amount payable to defendant through the State Bank of mysore, Tumkur, and took delivery of the Railway Receipt with the endorsement made in their favour by the Bank, The goods in question were not delivered to the plaintiffs till about January 1966. The plaintiffs, therefore, issued a notice to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the southern Railway and thereafter filed the suit on 4-10-1967 in the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur, for compensation or damages for loss of goods which had been booked in their favour by defendant-3. The suit was contested on the ground thai the Court of the Munsiff at Tumkur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of s. 80 of the Indian Railways Act as substituted by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (39 of 1961 ). The trial court over-ruled the objection of the Southern Railway regarding the territorial jurisdiction and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has affirmed it. Hence this second appeal by the Union of India.

( 3 ) SECTION 80 of the Indian Railways Act as it is in force now reads :"80. A suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to a passenger or for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods may be instituted, : " (a) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were, booked from one station to another on thp railway of the same railway administration, against that railway administration; (b) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were, booked through over 1he railway of two or more railway administrations, against the railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or to which the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or against the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred; and, in either case, the suit may be instituted in a court having jurisdiction over the place at which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or over the place in which the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred. "

( 4 ) WE are concerned in this case with the latter part of S. 80 which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts which can entertain suits against the railways for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to a passenger or for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods booked from one railway station to another. It provides that such a suit may be instituted in a Court having jurisdiction over the place at which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased its ticket or the animals or goods were delivered for carriage or over the place over which the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred. It is not disputed that the railway station at which the goods in this case were booked and the place of destination are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur. Nor is it the case of the plaintiffs that the los

Click Here to Read the rest of this document