KDHONDOJI RAO Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which this appeal arises was initially filed against defendant 1, the State of Mysore represented by the Chief Secretary. Bangalore and (2) the Government of India, represented by the Governor-General in Council, New-Delhi. The cause title was subsequently amended by the substitution of the description of defendant 2 as the Government of the Dominion of India, New Delhi, represented by the General Manager, M and S M Railways, Madras.

(2.) The claim of the plaintiff was for the recovery, of Rs. 2.500/- as compensation for the non-delivery of goods consigned by him on 23-11-47 at Vontimitta, a station of the M End S M Railways. The destination was Davanagere, a station which was then included in the Mysore Railways. The main contention of the defendants is that there was no valid notice prior to suit as required under Section 80. C P. C, and that the suit, in consequence, is riot maintainable. The other objections raised by them are that the notices Issued under Section 77 of the Railway Act are not in conformity with the provisions thereof and that otherwise the railway administration is not liable for loss of articles entrusted to be carried, as no special declaration required under Section 75 of the Railway Act was made, the commodity carried admittedly falling under excepted article. Under Section 80, C. P. C., as amended in 1948, in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the notice to be issued must be delivered in writing to, or left at the office of, the General Manager of that railway. Ex. N, the notice dated 24-8-1948, on behalf of the plaintiff, was issued to the Governor-General in Council, New Delhi and Ex. P to the Secretary to Government, the Central Government of India. New Delhi. Neither of the said notices is in conformity with the requirement of the provision viz., Section 80, C. P. C., as they were not addressed to the General Manager of the concerned Railway as required therein. Though the plaint was amended in 1849, by inserting Dominion of India in place of Government of India represented by Governor General in Council, it is admitted that no fresh notice had been issued. Section 80, C. P. C., is imperative and mandatory; the said provision absolutely debars a Court from entertaining a suit instituted without strict compliance with its provisions. It is conceded by the Advocate for the appellant that the notices issued to defendant 2 are defective. It need, therefore, hardly be said that the suit against defendant 2 does not lie and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed against defendant 2.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the notice issued to defendant 1 is also defective. The question for consideration is regarding the sufficiency in law or otherwise of the said notice. Mr. Nagaraja Rao, on behalf of the plaintiff contended that a liberal construction must be placed upon the section and that the notice issued should be held as sufficient en the ground that it substantially fulfils its object in informing the parties concerned about the nature and scope of the suit to be filed. The notice Ex. L has been issued to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore, Bangalore, the officer to whom it should be delivered in accordance with the requirement of the amended Civil Procedure Code. The said notice purports to have been Issued on benalf of Messrs K. Dhondoji Rao and Brothers together with one Mr. Santhuramappa both cloth merchants, Davanagere, advancing a joint 'claim aggregating to Rs. 3,249-15-6. These two persons Subsequently filed two different suits. A doubt about the validity of a joint notice is raised; but there is no substance in that contention. The splitting up of a joint claim does not by itself render either suit not maintainable for want of proper notice. No particular form of notice is prescribed; a joint claim in the notice advanced by two people who ultimately founded two suits cannot be deemed to be improper especially when both the claims put together do not exceed the amount mentioned in the notice. Both the suits were dismissed in the trial court; K. Dhondoji Rao who filed one of the suits as Manager of the joint Hindu family of himself and his brothers has preferred this appeal.