Panchapakesa Iyer, J.- This is an appeal by the General Papers Limited, Madras, defendants in O.S. No. 43 of 1951 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, against the judgment and decree therein.

That was a suit filed against them by one Pakir Mohideen and others of Kadianallur for recovering from them Rs. 6,781-12-0 with subsequent interests and costs.The story of the plaintiffs was briefly this.

On 1st March, 1950, the plaintiffs’ agent, Annamalai Nadar, placed an order Exhibit B-1 with the defendants for 7 bales 308 reams of imitation glassine paper worth Rs. 4,499-11-0. On 6th March, 1950, he placed an order for 3 bales of coloured transparent paper worth Rs. 1,454-11-0, under Exhibit B-2. Both these orders were placed by him after inspecting the stock of such paper with defendants, and approving of their quality but without separating the bales covered by the two contracts from the general stock with the defendants. The prices were ex-godown Madras, and the goods were to be despatched by railway to Sattur Railway Station. The packing and forwarding charges and sales tax were to be paid extra by the buyers. The entire price and charges were to be paid by the plaintiffs at Tenkasi within the jurisdiction of the lower Court, through the South India Bank, Ltd., The appellants sent both the consignments together by railway to Sattur consigned to self, and not to the plaintiffs, on 7th March, 1950, as per Exhibit A-2. The invoice for the goods came to Rs. 6,058 including the sales tax, forwarding charges and registration charges. The appellants drew a bank draft, Exhibit A-5, in favour of the South India Bank Ltd., Tenkasi, and sent it on 9th March, 1950 along with the railway receipt to the South India Bank with a covering letter Exhibit B-3, requesting the Bank to collect the amount as per the draft from the plaintiffs and deliver the railway receipt to them, duly endorsed in their favour, if they paid the draft amount and the clearing charges and over-due interest, if any, and requesting the bank to remit the proceeds to them, the over-due interest being directed to be charged at 6 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs paid the South India Bank, Tenkasi, Rs. 6,058, as per Exhibit A-2, and another sum of Rs. 6-6-0 towards the bank’s commission on 16th March, 1950 and got the railway receipt duly endorsed in their favour by the bank. But when they proceeded to Sattur Railway Station to take delivery of the goods they found that the goods had not arrived there. Ultimately they learned from the appellants that the goods were the subject of a fire accident on 14th March, 1950 in the course of transit, and that the salvaged wreck of the articles was in Tiruchirapalli Goods Station. The appellants learnt this by a letter, Exhibit B-5 dated 11th April, 1950 to them from the Chief Traffic Manager, Tiruchirapalli, and they communicated it to the plaintiffs. They tried to recover the loss from the railway, which however denied its responsibility relying on various things, like inevitable accident, the terms of the risk note signed by the appellants, etc. They then tried to make the plaintiffs approach the railway authorities and claim the damage, and returned the railway receipt to them through the brother of Pakir Mohideen for that purpose. The plaintiffs succeeded no better than the appellants in recovering anything from the railway. So, they filed the suit claiming the amount from the appellants on the ground that the property in the goods consigned had not passed to them but had remained with the appellants at the time the goods were destroyed by fire.

The appellants strenuously contested the suit, mainly on four grounds: (i) that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the contracts were made at Madras and as the appellants were residing outside its jurisdiction, and the goods were to be delivered at Sattur outside the jurisdiction of the lower Court; (ii) that the property in the goods had passed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document