(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are mentioned below. Two bales of cotton piece-goods were consigned on 4-10-1951 by the appellant from the Railway Station, Cannanore, on the Southern Railway to Howrah on the Eastern Railway. Since the consignee did not take delivery of the goods at Howrah, the consignor wrote Ext. A-9 dated 21-4-1952 to the Station authorities at Howrah for sending back the goods to him at Cannanore at his risk. The appellant was informed by Ext. A-12 dated 5-5-1952, that the goods were sold in auction by the Railway authorities on 13-3-1952 presumably under S.55 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The suit was therefore filed by the appellant to compel the first respondent the Union of India to return the goods and if it is found that the goods were sold, for the recovery of the invoice value of the goods. The two main contentions raised by the respondent are that the suit is not maintainable as no claim was made by the appellant in writing to the Railway administration under S.77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, as it stood before the amendment by Act 8 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. The courts below upheld these defence contentions.
(2.) THE first question to be decided is the interpretation of S.77 of the Act. S.77 is in the following terms:
(3.) IT has become unnecessary now to deal exhaustively with the case law showing the different interpretations of the word "loss" occurring in S.77 of the Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Governor-General in Council v. Musaddi Lal A. I. R.1961 S. C. 725. But before dealing with this decision it is necessary to refer to the following observations of Chief Justice Mr. Subba Rao in Union of India v. M. Pullappa A. I. R.1958 Andhra Pradesh 475 at 477 and 478: