RIKHAI LAL BINDESHRI PRASAD Vs. BANARSI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This though an appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, we have heard at considerable length, because while we are of opipion that we are in this case invited to consider a finding of fact, we are also of opinion that a finding of negligence or a finding that there was or was not default is not necessarily in all cases a finding of fact, if the finding has not been approached from the proper legal standpoint.

(2.) The plaintiff has proved that on 17 February 1925 he sent a registered and insure cover to a consignee in Calcutta, which cover is said to have contained a currency note of the value of one thousand rupees.

(3.) In the ordinary course the plaintiff's doubts might have been expected to be aroused within a few weeks at the utmost if he did not receive either from the post office or his consignee an intimation that the insured letter had been duly delivered. The plaintiff has asked the Court to believe that his suspicions were not so aroused until a year later, when he received a copy of his accounts with his consignee and found that he had not been credited with one thousand rupees. This question of the plaintiff's statement as to when he acquired knowledge of the loss of the thousand rupees is only of importance in a case of this description in second appeal in weighing the question of the burden of proof. Had lie taken any proper steps at all to satisfy himself, he would have been able to make a claim for his money from the post office at any time within three months.