Necessarily of issuing separate notices to each railway administration.

The two Second Appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami, J., and the Civil Revision Petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kishanlal Roopchand &38; Co., v. Indian Dominionl and The Governor-General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal2. In the former case, Mick, J., took the view that in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate notice under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be riven to each railway administration oh the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, notice under section 77 given to one such railway which entered into correspondence with the other railway on the subject of the loss before the expiry of the period of six months mentioned in section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was sufficient notice. Which of these two views is the correct one is one of the points for our determination in these three cases.

The facts of these three cases are the following. In two of these three cases, suits were laid against the Union of India by the consginee of goods for recovery of compensation for the loss of goods. In the two Second Appeals, the lower appellate Courts have dismissed the suits, and in the Civil Revision Petition the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissed the suit against the Southern Railway, the first defendant, but granted a decree against the second defendant the Western Railway, and an application for new trial was successful and the suit was dismissed against both defendants.

In S.A. No. 1008 of 1955, the appellant-plaintiff, a merchant in Tiruchirapalli, had five bales of woollen lohies and 7 bales of cotton piecewoods consigned to him from Baroda and Ahmedabad respectively on 21st October, 1948 and 25th June, 1950, for delivery to him at Tiruchirapalli station. Out of the first consignement of five bales of woollen lohies, only four bales were delivered on 17th November, 1948. Since the fifth bale was not delivered, the plaintiff put in a claim for its value. In respect of the second consignment five bales alone were delivered to the plaintiff and the remaining two bales were not delivered. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, claiming the price of non-delivered goods comprised in both consignments.

The trial Judge held that the claim for the one bale of lohies included in the first consignment was barred by limitation; but as regards the claim for the two bales of piecegoods included in the second consignment, he gave a decree for their value. The appellate Judge reversed this decree, and dismissed the suit, holding that section 80 of the Railways Act applied to the case and that the suit against the Southern Railway administration should fail, because, the evidence disclosed that the Southern Railway which was not the contracting railway was not the railway on which the loss occurred.

The appellant in S.A. No. 394 of 1956 is a hides and skins merchant of Vaniyambadi. The respondent in this appeal is the Indian Union Government, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway. The plaintiff was a consignee of 9 bags of sheep-skins, which were delivered to the Bengal Nagpur Railway at Nagpur railway station for being carried to Vaniyambadi on the Southern Railway on nth October, 1951. The goods arrived at Vaniyambadi on 20th November, 1951, and because of the delay in transit, the goods were damaged and open delivery was taken. The Traffic Inspector assessed the damage at Rs.759-9-6, which was the sum claimed in the plaint as dama