SHEO PRASAD Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been- argued at great length but the point involved in the Civil Revision is a very short one: Certain goods were consigned from Chandpur Ghat to Allahabad. The consignment was deliverable to self. The railway receipt was, however, endorsed in favour of the plaintiff who took delivery of the goods and found that there Was a shortage of 2 maunds and 7 seers. The value of the shortage was Rs. 174/ -. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount.

(2.) ON behalf of the defendant it was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff, in the witness-box, stated that the consignor had sent the goods to him for sale. The exact words were as follows: "he (the consignor) kept the goods into my 'arhat' to sell it and pay its price to him after deducting my commission. " after the plaintiff examined himself no other evidence was given and the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not the owner of the goods and he had, therefore, no right to file the suit.