A person who is not a party to a contract may still have a right to sue on the contract if he has a beneficial interest in the contract or if the defendant has acknowledged its liability to the plaintiff.

Sinha, J.

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants 1st party to an action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1300.00 with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 1,494/- in the following circumstances. The defendant 2nd party to the action, namely, Messers Banwari Lal Shri Ram, Kirana Merchants and Commission Agents, who were the commission agents of the plaintiff at Delhi, remitted a sum of Rs. 1300.00 in Government currency notes in an insured cover on 8-11-1948, to the plaintiff by his Darbhanga address. The insured cover reached Darbhanga post office on 11th November, and the post office sent an intimation to the plaintiff on 12th November to take delivery of the insured cover. The plaintiff, therefore, went to the past office on 15-11-1948 for taking delivery of the insured letter, but, he was informed that the letter in question was missing. Notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was served on the Dominion of India, defendant 1, as also on the Post Master General, Bihar, defendant 2 by the plaintiff. As no payment was made in spite of service of notices, the suit had to be brought.

2. Defendant 1, the Dominion of India, filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff had no cause of action and had no right to sue defendant 1, and that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable.

3. Defendant 2, the Post Master General, Bihar, filed another written statement alleging that the plaintiff had no valid cause of action against the department and that the claim of the plaintiff, was barred by limitation under Clause 130 of the Post and Telegraph Guide. It was further alleged that the department did not owe any liability to pay any compensation to the addressee of the insured letter under Sec.33, Indian Post Office Act read with Clause 130 of the Post and Telegraph Guide.

4. Both the Courts below considered the mat ter, and decreed the suit in a modified form. The appellate Court held that Clause 130(d) of the Post and Telegraph Guide did not bar the suit. It was also held that the post office acknowledged the right of the plaintiff-addressee to receive the insur ed letter containing the money and, in the letter of reply to the notice, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirboot Division, did not deny the right of the plaintiff to receive compensation. The Court below was of the opinion that Sec.33, Indian Post Office Act had no application inasmuch as the con- duet of the department showed that the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation for the loss of the insured letter.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. has been filed on behalf of defendant 3 (defendant 2nd party) for his transposition to the category of the plaintiff. This petition, perhaps, was in answer to one of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum. of appeal to the effect that the plaintiff had no right of suit and it was defendant 3 alone who could have brought the suit.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned Government. Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the plaintiffs suit must be dismissed inasmuch as the plaintiff had no right of suit because be was not a party to the contract, and it is said that a person who is no party to a contract has no right to sue for the enforcement of the contract; and, secondly, that the application made by defendant 3 for his transposition should be dismissed on the ground that defendant 3 had not given any notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., the provisions of which are imperative and mandatory, and in the absence of notice under Section 80, no suit can be maintainable by defendant 3, and defendant 3, without notice under Section 80, cannot be allowed to join as co-plaintiff.

7. Generally speaking, the proposition that a person who is not a party to a contract has no right to bring a suit under the contract must be accepted, but in suitable cases, the present one being one of them, this general rule must, give way. There is divergence of opinion on the poi