The endorsement of a railway receipt for valuable consideration can confer upon the endorsee a right of the pledgee, and such right can be enforced against the Railway. Section 80 of the Railways Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court as conferred by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

( 1 ) THE respondents Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, as plaintiffs in the Court of the first instance, filed Suit No. 456 of 1965 against Union of India, the defendant in the suit and the appellant before us, for a decree for Rs. 10,017/- in favour of either or alternatively, an enquiry into demages and a decree for such sum as might be found due, interests, costs and other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE respondents case as stated in the plaint was as follows:--The respondent No. 1, Ganpatrai Sagarmull acted as a commission agent of the respondent No. 2, K. P. Ramaswami, that in any event if the respondent No. 1 was not competent to maintain the suit, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the said sum by way of damages for non-delivery. After service of the due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of C. P. C. the respondents on or about 16th March, 1965 filed the said suit against the appellant in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court.

( 3 ) THE written statement filed on behalf of the appellant (who was the defendant in the trial Court) mainly consists of denials, It was alleged that in view of the assignment of the Railway Receipt and the passing of property in the goods thereby by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the said K. P. Rama-swamy Nadar Sons and Co. , the respondent No. 2 ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said Railway Receipt or the goods thereunder. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 was not entitled to and could not maintain the action or claim any relief on the said Railway Receipt or in respect of the goods thereunder.

( 4 ) IT was further alleged that the endorsement or assignment of the Receipt and the passing of the property having been made in favour of the respondent No. 1 as the commission agent of the said K. P. Ramaswamy Nadar Sons and Co. and the respondent No. 1 having acted for or on behalf of the said K. P. Ramaswamy Nadar Sons and Co. as such agents, the respondent No. 1 was also not entitled to and could not maintain any action or claim any relief on the said Railway Receipt or the goods covered thereby. According to the Union of India, the suit was not maintainable.

( 5 ) FOLLOWING issues were raised and settled at the trial :-- (1) Were 8 bags of small cardamoms booked under the Railway Receipt No. C 558753, dated 10th April, 1964? (2) Have the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and/or 2 any cause of action against the defendant? (3) Has this Court jurisdiction to entertain this suit? (4) Were the goods lost due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant as alleged in paragraph 9 of the written statement? (5) Is the value of the said 8 bags of cardamoms Rs. 10,017/- as alleged? (6) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

( 6 ) LEARNED trial judge answered issues Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs, that is, the respondents in this appeal. Regarding issue No. 2, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff No. 2, (the respondent No. 2 in this appeal), K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, had no cause of action in the suit and to that extent it was answered in the negative and in favour of the defendant i. e. the appellant in this appeal. Issue No. 4, however, was not pressed by the defendant. The learned trial Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 (i. e. . respondent No. 1) for Rupees 7,632/- with interest at 6% per annum and cost

( 7 ) IN this appeal parties argued only on the question of jurisdiction. The controversy is whether any part of the cause of action had arisen within the ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court and whether the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has, in any way, been affected by Section 80 of the Railways Act. In the above view of the matter, any discussion on the other issues raised in the suit does not appear to be necessary.

( 8 ) ON the question of jurisdiction, the learned trial Judg