K.Sahai, J.

1. Defendant No. 1, the Union of India, as owner of the North-Eastern Railway has presented this appeal. The suit out of which it arises was instituted for recovery of the price of ten bags of flour as well as ten empty bags, besides damages.

2. The Munsif who tried the suit dismissed it, and one of the findings to which he arrived was that the plaintiff had not served notice upon defendant No. 1 as required under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. On appeal the learned Additional Subr ordinate Judge held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to serve notice as required under Section 77 upon defendant No. 1. On this finding, he allowed the appeal, and decreed the plaintiffs suit in part.

3. The only point which Mr. P. K. Bose has taken on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge committed an error of law in holding that, in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was not required to serve a notice upon defendant No. 1 under Section 77 of the aforesaid Act. That, therefore, is the only point which arises for consideration in this appeal.

4. Section 77 of the Railways Act provides that a person must put his claim of