The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant's liability for conversion was based on wrongful detention of the goods, and the suit was not barred by limitation under Art.31 of the Limitation Act. The court also emphasized the acceptance of values as per the invoices for determining the recoverable amount.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages for conversion which has been decreed in part by the court below.

2. The plaintiffs represent a firm of merchants carrying on business at Mattancherry in Cochin. They were the consignees of various goods under separate contracts of sea carriage between Bombay and Cochin, through M/s. The New Dholera Steamship Co., Ltd., Bombay and the Malabar Steamship Co., Ltd.. Bombay. These two carriers have their common agent in the sole defendant in the case, viz, Messrs. The National Steamship Co., Bombay, with registered office at Mattancherry, and represented by Ratansee Panchan, residing at Mattancherry. According to the plaintiffs, there was failure on the part of the defendant to deliver 4 specific lots of goods covered by four separate Bills of lading, even though the goods had arrived and been stored in the defendant's godown, along with the rest. Two of these lots which consisted of copper circles and brass circles arrived in single voyage on 10-8-1947 by S. S. Jayabrahma engaged by the Dholera Steamship Co. The other two lots arrived on 29-6-1947 and 16-7-1947 by S. S. Janaki, of the Malabar Steamship Co., in two voyages, and consisted of separate bundles of tin blocks. On the plaintiffs' complaint of short delivery, the defendant undertook to nuke necessary enquiries and do the needful. Subsequently when the plaintiffs demanded settlement on basis of their invoice prices, the defendant called for revised claims at government control rates. This was on 20-11-1947. To this requisition, the plaintiffs replied to say that there was no control in connection with the goods and the invoices alone governed the extent of their loss. Nothing further happened and to all the plaintiffs' later reminders, the defendant remained only silent. This suit was accordingly laid on 4-4-1124 corresponding to 20-11-1948 for recovery from the defendant of the value of the goods not delivered along with proportionate freight charges and interest aggregating to Rs. 3356-2-4. The plaint averred that the defendant, either is still retaining the goods or has wrongfully converted them to his own benefit. The plaintiffs claimed that their cause of action for the suit arose in August 1947, on 20-11-1947, and on or after 1-1-1948.

3. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds covered mainly by the issues 1, 5, 6 and 8 as follows:

(1) Whether the suit against the defendant company is not maintainable? Is the cause of action, if any, only against the Malabar Steamship Company Ltd., and the New Dholera Steamship Ltd., and is the suit bad for misjoinder of causes of action?

(5) hether the defendant is not liable for any loss in excess of the value declared by the shipper in the Bills of entry?

(6) hether the defendant has caused conversion of the whole or part of the goods in dispute; whether the belief of the 1st plaintiff as to conversion is justifiable?

(8) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. On the technical plea covered by issue 1, the court below found that it would have been better if two separate suits had been filed against the defendant as representing the two different Steamship companies. But it did not matter because the claims against the different companies were separately shown in the plaint and the companies did not suffer on account of the joinder in this single suit, of the different causes of action against them. On the merits, the court below found that there was no question of short landing as pleaded by the defendant but it was only a case of short-delivery by the defendant of the goods and the defendant was accordingly liable to the plaintiffs in damages for conversion. These damages did not however extend to the prices as shown in the invoices but should be limited to the lower values as were declared by the shipper in the Bill of entry. The lower court held further that the failure to institute the suit within one year of the date when the goods should have be