GOGI PADMARAJAPPA Vs. MADDURU VENKATASUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question is whether the District Munsif was right in holding that the suit was not cognizable by his Court under Section 20(e) of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The suit is for recovery of balance due on account. The defendant (sic) in Guntur is said to have purchased gram from the plaintiffs doing business in Bellary. It appears that twenty-five bags of gram were despatched by the plaintiffs at Bellary to the defendant at Guntur by railway on the defendant s order. It is not alleged that the gram did not reach the defendant : in fact it is clear from the defendant s written statement that it did reach him. For nine bags the Railway receipt was issued in the defendant s own name : for sixteen bags it was issued in the plaintiffs name, but endorsed in the defendant s name so as to enable him to take delivery. The goods were not insured.

(3.) It appears to me on these facts that Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act applies : and that delivery to the Railway Company as a carrier has the same effect as delivery to the buyer and passes title in the goods. If this is so, even as regards a portion of the goods the cause of action arose in part at Bellary, and the suit was instituted in the proper Court. There was nothing to indicate a reservation by the plaintiffs of the jus disponendi in the case of the nine bags : and even in the case of the sixteen bags for which he took the Railway receipt in his own name, this intention might be held to be negatived by his endorsement of the receipt in the name of the defendant (vide Remfry on Sale of Goods at pages 205-206). The failure to insure the goods to which the District Munsif attaches so much importance is immaterial seeing that they safely reached their destination. It is only where the goods do not reach the consignee that the special provision of law embodied in the latter part of Section 93 of the Indian Contract Act applies.