Renupada Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The plaintiff of the trial Court is the appellant in this appeal and the only point raised in this Court on behalf of the appellant is whether upon the facts of this case which are undisputed the Courts below should have decreed the suit after holding that the notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a legal and valid notice.
(2.) Briefly stated the following are the allegations in the plaint: The plaintiff is a brass and bell-metal dealer of Midnapur town and pro forma defendantDebendra Nath Kali is another dealer in such goods. They despatched several bags of brass and bell-metal scrap in June, 1945 to one S. C. De alias Satish Chandra De at Armenian Ghat in Calcutta under four railway invoices, the plaintiff being the consignor under three of them and the pro forma defendant being the consignor under the remaining invoice. Immediately after delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee, the goods were seized by the police and a criminal case under Ordinance (XIX of 1943) was started at Bankura against the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant. They were ultimately discharged on 5th February, 1947 and thereafter they prayed for return of their goods. But the Magistrate who dealt with the matter held on 8th January, 1948 that they had no remedy as the goods had already been delivered to the B. N. Railway on 13th February, 1947. A revision case was thereafter filed before the Sessions Judge who after notice to the railway passed an order on 30th April. 1948 for delivery of the goods to the plaintiff and pro forma defendant Debendra at Kharagpur by the B. N. Railway. The latter failed to deliver the goods to them and hence the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of the price of the goods covered by the three consignments sent by him. The claim was laid at Rs. 1,919/12/- being the value of 17 mds. 5 srs. and 10 chhataks of brass and bell-metal scrap at the rate of Rs. 112/- per maund. '
(3.) Various defences were raised on behalf of the Dominion of India, namely, that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the goods and the notice under Section 80 of the Code was not a legal and valid notice. All these objections were upheld by the trial Court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.;