( 1 ) THE plaintiff of the trial Court is the appellant in this appeal and the only point raised in this Court on behalf of the appellant is whether upon the facts of this case which are undisputed the Courts below should have decreed the suit after holding that the notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a legal and valid notice.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the following are the allegations in the plaint: The plaintiff is a brass and bell-metal dealer of Midnapur town and pro forma defendantdebendra Nath Kali is another dealer in such goods. They despatched several bags of brass and bell-metal scrap in June, 1945 to one S. C. De alias Satish Chandra De at Armenian Ghat in Calcutta under four railway invoices, the plaintiff being the consignor under three of them and the pro forma defendant being the consignor under the remaining invoice. Immediately after delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee, the goods were seized by the police and a criminal case under Ordinance (XIX of 1943) was started at Bankura against the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant. They were ultimately discharged on 5th February, 1947 and thereafter the