JUDGMENT

Trivedi, J. - This is a plaintiff's second civil appeal against the judgment and decree of the Second Civil Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal and confirm.- in- the decree of the trial court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for realisation of Rs. 730 as damages. The plaintiff's case was that on 7-11-1958 two wagons of fuel wood were loaded by him for being despatched to Prayag, but the railway receipts were not delivered on 7-11-1958. Another Station Master took charge on 8-11-1958 and the railways receipts were not delivered on that day as well. On 9th November, 1958 the Station Master demanded some illegal sum and on the plaintiff's refusal to pay, he was told to pay a sum of Rs. 35 per svagaon as demurrage. The plaintiff protested and told the Station Master that the wagons should have been booked to Prayag Station and not to Allahabad Junction station. When the railway receipts were not delivered to the plaintiff till 12-11-1958, the plaintiff complained to the D.V.S. Jhansi and A.O.C.I. Banda. It was also stated that several letters thereafter were sent to the authorities complaining against the action of the railway administration but to no effect. The suit out of which this appeal arises was then filed after notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act for damages. The two Station Masters who were incharge of the railway station on 7-11-1968 and 8-11-1968 were also made parties, and the relief was sought against them also for their wrongful action. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay and the General Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi. In the written statement filed by them the liability was denied, and it was contended that the plaintiff Ram Khelawan refused to take the delivery of consigned goods which were subsequently sold by auction on 3-10-1959 after notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Railway Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, the Station Master, it was stated that the senders did not turn up at all to demand the railway receipts on 8-11-1958, but their representative Sri Prahlad, who supervised the loading was directed to tell the owners to come with demurrage charges of Rs. 35.95 per wagon and get the railway receipts. It was further stated that on 12-11-1958 railway receipts were demand- ed by Sri Jageshwar Prasad without payment of demurrage charges.- The allegation that the defendant demanded illegal gratification wag-denied. This defendant also denied that any loss was caused to the plaintiff by his misconduct. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 i.e. the General Manager Northern Railway it was also mentioned that the complaint of the plaintiff was enquired into and found incorrect. Defendant No. 6 who was the Station Master till 7-11-1958, in his written statement stated that the wagons were placed at the disposal of the plaintiff at 10.30 but the two wagons were under loading on that day. He also denied his liability for the damages. A number of issues were framed by the trial court. The suit of the plaintiff, however, was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court holding that the suit was for non-delivery of goods as such Article 31 of the Limitation Act would apply.

2. According to the plaint allegations the plaintiff was deprived of the goods and was not handed over railway receipt under which he could take the delivery of the goods. Under Article 31 of the Limitation Act a suit against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery or delay in delivering goods has to be filed within one year from the time when the goods ought to have been delivered. The railway receipt in the instant case was not delivered to the sender rather it was withheld by the station master of the starting station. The record further shows that the loaded wagons were despatched to Allahabad Junction Station and invoices of