ABDULRAHIMAN BEARY Vs. ABDULKHADAR BEARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 1500/- being the value of goods entrusted for transport to Bombay with defendants 1 and 2 who were public carriers. Admittedly the goods were not delivered to the consignee, nor returned to the consignor. The defence, which found acceptance in the courts below, was of limitation under Art.31 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that Art, 31 is not applicable to the instant case for two reasons firstly, that the Article applies only to suits by consignees, and not by consignors; and secondly, the Article applies only to suits in tort and not to those based on breach of contract. Reliance was placed on the observations of Chatterjee, J. in Radha Shyam Basak v. Secretary of State for India (ILR 44 Calcutta 16) to the effect that the Article contemplates a suit by the party who is entitled to the delivery, viz., the consignee.

(3.) This dictum came up for consideration in Vally Mohammad Haji Gunny v. Nederland S. Navigation & Co. ( AIR 1924 Cal. 173 ), where Page, J. dissented from it and held: