The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Central Government as the owner of the railways and the jurisdiction of the court based on the place where the contract of carriage was made.

1. The petitioner plaintiff consigned a bale of piecegoods valued at Rs. 460.26 by rail from Cannanore on the Southern Railway to Harinagar on the North Eastern Railway, both railways, as also all railways over which the goods had to pass in transit being railways owned and administered by the Central Government. The evidence shows that the goods were lost by the railway administration after they had reached Harinagar, and, on 10-5-1957, the plaintiff by his letter Ext. A8 made a claim for their value to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the North Eastern Railway. Not obtaining satisfaction, he sued on the small cause side of the court of the Munsiff of Cannanore for the recovery of Rs. 463,26 as damages, after due compliance with the requirements of S.80 of the Civil Procedure Code. His suit was laid against, "The Union of India as the owner of the North Eastern Railway represented by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur." After over-ruling the objection of the defendant that the suit was bad for want of a valid and proper notice under S.77 of the Indian Railways Act, the court below dismissed it on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction. In doing so it viewed the suit as one against the North Eastern Railway and it thought that the cause of action was confined to the loss of the goods at Harinagar, none of the requirements of S.20 of the Civil Procedure Code for conferring jurisdiction on the court at Cannanore being therefore present

2. The defendant has not entered appearance here, and I am grateful to Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer for the assistance he has rendered me as amicus curiae. On the merits there can be no doubt that the defendant is liable, and even on the question of jurisdiction I might observe that the proper thing for the lower court to have done on the view it took would have been to return the plaint for presentation before the proper court rather than to dismiss the suit outright. However, there is no need to go into that matter since, in my view, the court below had jurisdiction.

3. On the question of a claim under S.77 of the Indian Railways Act I might observe that a claim in writing was preferred in time to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the North Eastern Railway who accepted it on behalf of that administration and entered into correspondence with the plaintiff as if he were the proper person to entertain the claim on behalf of that railway administration. It is true that S.140 of the Indian Railways Act says that a notice or other document to be served on a railway administration may be served on the manager thereof; but that section does not say that it may be served only in that manner, and it is not exhaustive of the modes in which service can be effected. When a responsible officer of a railway administration receives a claim on behalf of the administration and acts upon it, it may well be presumed that he had the necessary authority to receive it on behalf of the administration, and, in my view, the court below was right in holding that there was due compliance with S.77 of the Indian Railways Act.

4. Turning now to the question of jurisdiction, there can be little doubt, having regard to the provisions of S.79 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the person sued in this case is the Central Government and that in naming the defendant the plaint has properly named that government as, "The Union of India." The words following these words in the cause title, namely, the words "as the owner of the North Eastern Railway represented by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur" are a mere superfluity and can, in my opinion, be ignored. It might be that summons in the suit was served on the General Manager of the railway named, but there is no case that summons has not been duly served on the real defendant, namely the Central Government. Therefore the question whether service on the General Manager of the Railway is sufficient service does not arise