MALIK, CJ. :- This case has been argued at great length but the point involved in the Civil Revision is a very short one. Certain goods were consigned from Chandpur Ghat to Allahabad. The consignment was deliverable to self. The railway receipt was, however, endorsed in favour of the plaintiff who took delivery of the goods and found that there was a shortage of 2 maunds and 7 seers. The value of the shortage was Rs. 174/-. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount.

2. On behalf of the defendant it was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit.

3. The plaintiff, in the witness-box, stated that the consignor had sent the goods to him for sale. The exact words were as follows :

"He (the consignor) kept the goods into my arhat to sell it and pay its price to him after deducting my commission."

After the plaintiff examined himself no other evidence was given and the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not the owner of the goods and he had, therefore, no right to file the suit.

4. Against the decision of the lower Court a civil revision under S. 25 of the Court of Small Causes has been filed in this Court.

5. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the railway receipt having been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had sufficient interest to maintain the suit, it has also been urged that, as the plaintiff would have earned a commission by the sale of the goods at a certain percentage of the sale price, his interest had suffered by reason of the short delivery and he had a right to bring an action.

6. The second point is not worthy of very serious consideration as the claim based on the basis of the loss of commission must be deemed to be remote and the plaintiff has not claimed the loss of commission that he might have suffered but has claimed the price of the goods lost in transit.

7. The first question, however, is of some importance, whether a transferee simpliciter of a railway receipt can maintain a suit for price of goods lost in transit. It can no longer be seriously contested that a railway receipt is a document of title and by endorsement of the railway receipt the title in the goods can be transferred to the endorsee. If the case stood merely at that there would be no difficulty in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to bring a suit, being the endorsee of the railway receipt and prima facie the owner of the goods. The difficulty, however, has arisen by reason of the plaintiffs own statement that the goods were merely kept in his arhat for sale and alter the sale the price less commission was to be paid to the person to whom the goods belonged.

8. In - Dolatram Dwarkadas v. B. B. and C. L. Rly. Co., AIR 1914 Bom 178 (A) it was held that a railway receipt was a mercantile document of title and the endorsee of the receipt had sufficient interest in the goods covered by it to maintain an action against the railway company for damages, in respect of the goods covered by the receipt. The nature of the action, however, in that case was a little different from the one with which we are concerned. In that case, the endorsee of the railway receipt had gone to take delivery, the railway had accepted that he had the right to take delivery, he had signed the receipt book and paid freight and demurrage, he took delivery of 96 bags and claimed open delivery of 19 bags, the railway refused to give him open delivery and it was urged on behalf of the endorsee before the High Court of Bombay that the railway having chosen the, accept the freight and demurrage from the plaintiff and having taken his signature in anticipation of the delivery to him, was not entitled to refuse delivery and that the defendant having by its acts recognised the plaintiff as the person entitled to take delivery was estopped from contending that it was not liable for failure to give delivery.

The learned Judges allowed the revision holding that a railway receipt was a mer