The limitation period under S. 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905, applies to suits against the Board of Trustees of the Port for acts done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of the Act.

JAGADISAN, J. :- The Madras Port Trust is the appellant in this appeal. They were sued by the two plaintiffs in C. S. No. 618 of 1956, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6807-14-0, as damages caused to a consignment of goods by reason of their alleged negligence The learned City Civil Court Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4200-60 nP. holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages only in respect of 145 bundles, out of a total consignment of 235 bundles of salted hides and skins. The plaintiffs have preferred a memorandum of cross objections praying for a decree for the full amount claimed in the plaint.

2. The first plaintiff is a registered term of partnership carrying on business at Madras They obtained a shipment of 235 bundles of wet salted hides and skins from Calcutta per S. S. "Indian Merchant". The consignment was covered by a bill of lading No. 100 dated 21-07-1955, and was insured with the second plaintiff, which is the Asiatic Government Security Life and General Assurance Co, Ltd. incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The goods were landed at the Madras Port on 02-08-1955 The Port Trust Authorities stacked the goods under tarpaulin covers in a special shed with platform and root Between 1-7-1955 and 3-8-1955, the weather at Madras was cloudy and there were drizzles and showers occasionally. The clearing agent of the First plaintiff P.W. 2 saw the consignment on 2-8-1955 after landing and found the bales in good condition. On the next day, he found them wet and dripping with water.

The first plaintiff wrote Ex. A.2 dated 03-08-1955 to the defendants (The Madras Port Trust) alleging damages to the goods by exposure to the rain, and requesting them for a survey of the goods to assess the damages sustained by them. The first plaintiff made a claim to the second plaintiff on the basis of the insurance policy Ex. A.14 The second plaintiff arranged for a survey of the goods by Messrs. Wilson and Co. Ltd. the local agents for Lloyd's Corporation. One Mr. C.E. Holland, employed in Messrs Chambers and Co. dealers in hides and skins, was appointed surveyor and he submitted a report in Lloyd's form Ex. A.1. The amount of damages suffered by the goods was estimated and fixed at Rs. 6611-13-11. The Surveyor's fee was Rs. 196 and the total of the two figures is Rs. 6807-13-11. The second plaintiff, the insurer, acting on the Lloyd's report, paid to the first plaintiff the sum of Rs. 6807-14-0 and on 08-09-1955, the second plaintiff became subrogated to the rights of the first plaintiff against the defendants.

3. The plaintiffs charge the defendants with negligence in stacking the goods improperly without taking sufficient precautions to keep them safe from being drenched by rain. They allege that the goods were damaged only because of such negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants deny any negligence on their part and attribute the deterioration of the goods to the inherent vice in them. The defendants plead that they kept the goods under tarpaulin cover in a special shed, that they have done all that they need do and that, therefore, they are absolved from all liability. They also demur to the maintainability of the suit and contend that the suit claim is barred by limitation under S. 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905.

4. The learned City Civil Judge overruled the plea of limitation observing as follows: "Ex. A. 9 (the suit notice dated 17-1-1956) seems to have been sent by the plaintiffs within six months from the accrual of the cause of action for this suit namely 02-08-1955, and further the present suit had definitely come to be filed subsequent to one month's previous notice referred to under S. 110 noted above. I am, consequently, satisfied that the plaintiffs had complied with the provisions of S. 110 as well." This finding of the learned Judge is extremely unsatisfactory and we must observe tha