R. Prasad, J. - (1.)THIS is a first appeal, which has been filed by one of the defendants, namely, Messrs Purshottam Dass Banarsi Dass from the decision of the 1st Additional Civil Judge. Kanpur in Suit No. 187 of 1952 dated 3rd August 1956. The Union of India through the Deputy General Manager. Western Railway, filed this suit against Uarshad Rai Natwar Lal Rawal, the Bank of Baroda. Birhana Road, Kanpur, Shri Shiva Chandra Misra and M/s. Purshottam Dass Benarsidass defendants 1 to 4 respectively. Messrs Purshottam Dass Benarsi Dass have filed the present first appeal.
(2.)THE reliefs sought by the Union of India in the suit were that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4, the present appellant firm asking it to return the suit goods viz. 248 bags of Zeera and ordering it to pay compensation in respect of the fall in value by detention or otherwise consequent upon its wrongful retention, or alternatively that a decree be passed against defendant No. 4 that it should pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 38,000 with interest at six per pent from the date of the suit till realisation, or in the alterative a decree be passed against defendants Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally for Rs. 38,000 with six per cent interest from the date of the suit till realisation. There were certain other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs but they are now no more relevant for the purposes of the first appeal.
The facts alleged in the plaint put shortly are these. The Union of India was the owner of the Western Railway. Unjha and Kanpur Collectorganj are both stations on the system of the Western Railway, and the Union of India in its commercial capacity as Railway carriers operated in regard to transport of passengers and goods on and in between the aforesaid stations. On 20th July 1950, Harshad Rai Natwar Lal defendant No. 1 booked a consignment of 248 bags of white Zeera at Unjha for Kanpur Collectorganj. Railway Receipt No. 577283 dated 20th July 1950 covered the consignment. It was consigned to self. Another consignment of one bag white Zeera was likewise booked by the defendant No. 1 ex-Unjha to Kannauj and the number of the relative Railway Receipt was 577284 dated 20th July 1950. This was also consigned to self. The first consignment was loaded in wagon No. 13973 to the extent of 130 bags, and wagon No. 11314 to the extent of 118 bags. They were despatched for destination by 412 Down shunting on 21st July 1950. The consignment of one bag ex-Unjha to Kannauj was loaded in a T. R. Van to its destination as it was a small consignment. Defendant No. 1 passed on the Railway Receipt in regard to one bag ex-Unjha to Kannauj to some cheats and sent the Railway Receipt with regard to the consignment of 248 bags ex-Unjha to Kanpur Collectorganj to the Bank of Baroda Kanpur branch with the request that the same be delivered to one Sitaldass Baldev Prasad, which was a fictitious name on payment of Rs. 30,000/ for which a Hundi was also drawn. The cheats went over to Kanpur and requested the Bank of Baroda for sometime to retire the Railway Receipt with regard to 248 bags On 24th July 1950, the Bank of Baroda had received the Railway Receipt covering the consignment of 248 bags along with the Hundi for Rs 30,000/ with direction as B. C. draft (bill to be collected) and not B. P. (bill purchased). The Bank of Baroda defendant No. 2 did not make any effort to find out if there was a firm by the name of Sitaldass Baldevdass in Nayaganj Kanpur. Nor did they ever present the Railway Receipt before 3rd August 1950 before the plaintiffs. The cheats who were in possession of the Railway Receipt relating to the consignment of one bag ex-Unjha to Kannuj cleverly and fraudulently made forgery in the said Railway Receipt so as to convert it into Railway Receipt relating to the consignment of 248 bags ex-Unjha to Kanpur. They changed the last digit of the Railway Receipt and its destination from Kannauj to Kanpur Collectoraganj. They effected delivery of the goods on 29th July 1950 and 1st August 1950 by endorsing the said Railway Receipt in favour of Shiv Chandra Misra defendant No. 3, in whose hotel at Meston Road, the said cheats were staying. Goods were thus obtained from the plaintiffs on the basis of a forged Railway Receipt by defendant No. 3, Shiv Chandra Misra, in collusion with the cheats. The forgery in the document was such, that it could possibly not be detected by a naked eye although the Railway staff took every precaution and care that was expected of them while making the delivery of the consignment. The defendant No. 3 is thereafter alleged to have pledged the goods with defendant No. 4, the present appellant for a sum of Rs. 18,700.00, but as the pledger did not have any rights in the properly pledged, the pledgee also did not derive any right in them. The possession and retention of the goods by defendant No. 4 was unauthorised, unjust and Illegal and that defendant No. 4 was bound to return the goods to the plaintiff and pay compensation for loss or to pay the price thereof. It was further alleged that the Bank of Baroda could not spot out any person of the description of Baldeo Dass Sita Ram and had received a telegram from defendant No. 1 on 3rd August 1960 and proceeded to enquire on phone from the Goods Supervisor at Kanpur Collectorganj whether goods as per Railway Receipt No. 577283 dated 20th July 1950 ex-Unjha to Kanpur Collectorganj had arrived Defendant No. 2 was then inform ed that the goods came in two wagons and that delivery of the same had been taken on the presentation of the Railway Receipt on 20th July 1960 (contents of wagon No. 13314 for 118 bags) and on 1st August 1950 (contents of wagon No. 13973 for 130 bags). Eventually the Bank sent its peon along with the original Railway Receipt, when the plaintiffs came to know that the goods delivered to defendant No. 3 were delivered on the basis of the forged Railway Receipt, and the plaintiffs then realised that the plaintiffs had been cheated in parting with the goods on forged Railway Receipt, of which the plaintiffs were in possession as bailees.

(3.)THE plaintiffs immediately reported the incident to the Watch and Ward and the Government Railway Police authorities Immediate action was taken. Defendant No. 3 was contacted and interrogated and from mm, clues with regard to the consignment of 248 bags of white Zeera were found, and it became known that the said consignment was in the possession of defendant No. 4 and locked in their godown. The police seized the consignment in the godown of defendant No. 4. The cheats, however, could not be traced out by the police. At the instance of the Government Railway Police, the Railway Magistrate direct ed that the consignment be released in favour of the plaintiffs and that the defdt. No. 4 be directed to hand over the goods to the Railway authorities. Defendant No. 4 went in revision before the District Magistrate from the aforesaid order of the Railway Magistrate, who in his turn referred the matter Mo this Court. Hon'ble M.C. Desai, J. directed the police to retain the goods but did not decide the question of title to the same. Defendant No. 1 had been a party to the proceeding in this Court at Allahabad and was informed of the orders passed Defendant No. 1 instead of filing a suit against the other defendants, filed suit No. 38 of 1951 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mehsana claiming Rs. 34,000 and costs and interest against the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the plaintiffs of the instant case and a written statement was filed. It was then alleged that the plaintiffs were entitled to file the instant suit as the goods were wrongly removed from the lawful possession of the plaintiffs.