DWARKA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Prahlad Singh Bindra, Senior subordinate Judge, Jullundur, dated 30-12-1950 the points canvassed for our decision are one of res judicata and the other of the validity of notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. , which are really the only two points decided by the trial Court.

(2.) IN order to understand how the question of res judicata arises it may be necessary to give the facts of the case in some detail. On 20-4-1943 the firm Dayal Das-Dharam Paul of Dhilwan are alleged to have consigned 200 bags of wheat weighing 500 maiuids to Surat, the consignee being basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan of Philwan. This was by means of invoice No. 40 and Railway receipt No. 498293, and the goods are alleged to have been sent by a wagon No, 27325. On 29-4-1943 the goods were sold by the consignee to Dwarka Das plaintiff in the following manner it was represented to him that the Railway Receipt was lost. An indemnity bond was then executed in favour of Dwarka Das by Besheshar Nath-Ram Kishan who were the consignees from Dayal Das-Dharam Paul, the sale price being Rs. 7, 500/ -. This indemnity bond was attested by the Station Master of Dhilwan. Another indemnity bond was executed by Dwarka das, Dayal Das-Dharam Paul and Bashesher Nath-Ram Kishan on the same day in favour of the railway (N. W. Railway ). Dwarka Das, the plaintiff, then went to Surat and produced the indemnity bond but was refused delivery, because in the meanwliile the goods were being claimed by the firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinha-bhai of Surat.

(3.) THIS new claimant claimed to have obtained title to these goods by means of the endorsement of the Railway Receipt, which the other claimant, the present plaintiff, was claiming to have lost, in tne following manner. Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan endorsed the Railway Receipt in favour of behari Lal who in turn endorsed it in favour of Roshan Lal-Hans Raj who then sent it to the imperial Bank of Surat for collection of money and from whom it was obtained by the firm pranjiwan Das-Jinhabhai. Thus tne firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinhabhai was putting forward a claim against the Railway on the basis of the original receipt which they had in their possession endorsed to them from various persons, and Dwarka Das was claiming the same goods on the basis of an indemnity bond which was executed in his favour by the original consignees, that is, the firm Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan of Dhilwan.