Scope of provisions of Article 30 and 31 of Limitation Act, 1908.

This is a second appeal which has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the District Judge of Kurnool in A.S.No.101 of 1947, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsiff in O.S.No.167 of 1945.

The facts are: Six bundles of cotton cloth were consigned on 14th September. 1943, by the plaintiff’s deceased father Devappa from the Tuggali railway station under R.R.No.63/17791 and Invoice No.1/6 for delivery to himself at Hindupur. Of these six bundles, only three bundles, weighing 3 maunds and 26 seers, arrived at Hindupur on 16th September, 1943. The plaintiff’s father took delivery of these three bundles under protest and informed the railway authorities on 30th September, 1943, about the non-delivery of the remaining three bundles. The Chief Commercial Manager, M. & S.M. Railway, wrote to the plaintiff’s father on 14th October, 1943, that he would make enquiries into the matter and send a reply in due course. As no reply Was however received by the plaintiff’s father for nearly a month afterwards, he got a notice sent through his lawyer on 14th November, 1943, claiming compensation of Rs.2,955-13-0 for the non-delivery of the remaining three bales. The Chief Commercial Manager by his letter dated 17th February, 1944, replied that the bales in question had been lost from a running train and that the property recovered by the police and kept in the Sub-Magistrate’s Court, Gooty, would be delivered to the plaintiff’s father in due course. On 15th June, 1944, 63 items of cloth valued at Rs.571 were delivered to the plaintiff’s father by the Traffic Inspector, Guntakkal. The remaining cloth of the value of Rs.1,964-13-0 was not delivered to the plaintiff’s father. Nor was its value paid to him. The Chief Commercial Manager by his letters, dated 31st May, 1944 and 14th July, 1944, declined to entertain the plaintiff’s claim in respect of it. The plaintiff is entitled to recover as compensation Rs.1,964-13-0 being the value of the remaining cloth, Rs.100 being the amount spent by the plaintiff’s father towards travelling expenses and Rs.300 which the plaintiff’s father would have realised as profit had the cloth not delivered been sold by him during the Dasara season of 1943 making up in all Rs.2,364-13-0 from the defendant. Notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, has been given to the defendant prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff had instituted the suit on 14th. July, 1945, impleading the defendant as “The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., represented by the Member to the Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi.” On 8th February, 1946, he put in I.A.No.145 of 1946 for leave to amend the description of the defendant as “Governor-General of India in Council represented by the General Manager, M. & S.M. Railway.” This application was allowed on 18th February, 1946.

The defendant denied first of all the liability sought to be fastened by the plaintiff and secondly pleaded that there was no proper notice and thirdly that the suit was barred by limitation.

On the point of fact, namely, whether the plaintiff was entitled to any amount, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,964-13-0 as compensation.

On the ground of want of proper notice following the decisions in Bhagachand Dagdusa v. Secretary of State1, Apparao v. Secretary of State2, Marina Ammayi v. Secretary of State3, Governor-General in Council v. Krishnaswami Pillai4 and Governor-General of India v. Raghunandan Shenoy5 and also that the suit was barred by limitation by-reason of the fact that on the date when the amendment was allowed it was beyond the time prescribed under Article 30 or 31, of the Limitation Act, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

There was an appeal therefrom and the learned District Judge held that there was proper notice in this case and secondly that the suit was not barred by limitation. Therefore he decreed the suit for Rs.1,964-13-0 and proportionate c