C. NAGAPPAN, J. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3016 of 1984 by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras on 1.9.1986.

Plaintiff is the appellant herein.

The plaintiff averments can be summarised as follows :

The ship "ZARATHUSTRA" of which the first defendant is the Shipping Agent, arrived at Madras on 6.6.1978 and amongst other goods a consignment of 100 bales second hand refugee clothings under mark Mr. Ramachandran, Madras 1/100 was landed. The plaintiff as usual on the defendant's request, received and rendered the necessary services therefor. No one filed any import application with defendant's delivery order for clearance of the consignment and as it was lying in the plaintiff's Transit area uncleared for a considerable time, the same was removed to the Uncleared Goods Warehouse. The plaintiff thereupon gave notice to the defendants on 14.2.1979 that application is being made to the Customs for the sale of the goods under Section 61 of the Madras Port Trust Act. The first defendant repudiated the liability on untenable grounds. There was, however, no response from the second defendant. The consignment was confiscated by Customs on 22.1.1979 under their order No. 58/335/78-Gr.III. The first defendant as Steamer Agent and the second defendant as a consignee of the cargo are both liable to pay charges due to the plaintiff for the services rendered to the consignment upto the date of confiscation. The total amount due to the plaintiff on the consignment in respect of the services rendered is a sum of Rs. 97,194.89 and the same is still due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants. The defendants have failed and neglected to pay the same in spite of repeated demands, including the legal notice dated 14.5.1980. The plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 97,194.89 either jointly or severally together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum.

The first defendant in its written statement repudiated its liability and contended as follows :

The suit against it is not maintainable as it acted only as an agent of a disclosed principal and it is not personally liable under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. It is true that the vessel 'ZARATHUSTRA' under the agency of the first defendant called at the Port of Madras in or about June, 1978 for discharging the quantity manifested for the Port of Madras. Amongst other consignments, 100 bales of second hand refugee clothing were discharged into the custody of the plaintiff for ultimate delivery to the second defendant, namely, the consignee. Under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act and also as per the practice, the carrier is prohibited from giving direct delivery to the consignee. The plaintiff who takes charge of the cargo landed from the ships, delivers it to the consignee. It is the practice of the steamer agents like the first defendant to inform the various consignees of the arrival of the vessel and it is for the consignees to arrange for clearance of the consignments, after complying with the necessary import formalities. The carrier of the first defendant has nothing to do with the delivery of the cargo and their liability, if any, ceases immediately on the discharge of the cargo from the ship's tackle. Under Section 42(7) of the Major Port Trusts Act, once the cargo is delivered into the custody of the plaintiff, it is only the plaintiff who becomes liable to account for the cargo take charge of into their custody any consequently, the plaintiff cannot have any recourse against the first defendant in respect of the cargo landed from the ships. So far as this case is concerned, a delivery order was issued by the first defendant to the Associated Transport Limited, the clearing and forwarding agent of the first defendant on 8.8.1978 on the surrender of the original bill of lading with a view to clear the cargo landed by the vessel. The