KEDARNATH Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two first appeals No. 74 of 1955 and No. 9 of 1956 are directed against the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for non-delivery of goods consigned from Tapana Railway Station (old G. I. P. now Central Railways) to Sri Madhopur (Western Railways) and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS are the last endorsees of the railway receipt Ex. 1-A1 dated 5th January, 1948 for the consignment of 285 bags of cotton seeds consigned by firm Laxminarain Balkishen Das Bhootra (Defendant No. 4) from Tapana Railway Station to Sri Madhopur. The railway receipt Ex. 1-A1 was endorsed by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 5, by defendant No. 5 to defendant No. 6, by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 7, by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendants Nos. 8 and 9 and by defendants Nos. 8 and 9 in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaint allegations as the goods were not delivered at Sri Madhopur to the plaintiffs they filed the present suit against the Union of India representing the Western, Central and Northern Railways and defendant No. 4, the original consignee and defendants Nos. 5 to 9 the subsequent endorsees of the railway receipt claiming Rs. 10,000/- for the price of the goods damages and other incidental charges. Defendants Nos. 4 to 9 were impleaded because they were also endorsees of the railway receipt and according to the plaintiffs were bound to deliver the goods to them.

(3.) WHETHER by the endorsement of the railway receipt and the payment of the price of the goods the transaction of sale was completed and the ownership in the goods passed to the plaintiffs or not is to be considered. Before the Indian Sale of Goods Act No. 3 of 1933, a railway receipt was not expressly included in the 'document of title to goods'. In Ramdas Vithaldas Durbar Vs. S. Amerchand & Co. (1) it was held that : - "a Railway receipt issued to the consignor of goods is an instrument of the title within the meaning of sec. 103 (Indian Contract Act) Whenever a doubt arises as to whether a particular document is a 'document showing the title' or a 'document of title', the test is whether the document in question is used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods,or authorising or purporting to authorise either by endorsement or delivery the possession of the document to transfer or receive the goods thereby represented. " Now the definition of 'document of title to goods' under sec. 2 (4) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act specifically includes a railway receipt. But a mere endorsement of the railway receipt is not enough to complete the transaction of sale. Without anything more it may only mean to authorise the endorsee to take delivery of the goods represented by the railway receipt as agent of the consignor. Successive endorsements as in the present case would also have the same effect as constituting the successive endorsees the agents of their respective endorsers. The property in the goods does not pass to the endorsee merely by endorsement of the railway receipt in his favour, but where the endorsee pays the price of the goods and the parties intend by endorsing the railway receipt and by payment of the price that the property in the goods should also pass then the goods west in the endorsee and the endorser loses all his rights in them. (See Shamji Bhanji and Co. , Vs. North Western Rly. Co. (2 ). The plaintiffs filed the present suit in their right as owner of the goods by virtue of the endorsement of the railway receipt effected in their favour by defendants Nos. 8 and 9. It is not their case that the endorsement was made in their favour only for the purposes of taking delivery of the goods. Sec. 19 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act lays down that: - " (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be trans (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the in tention of the parties regard shall be had to the term of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. " ferred.