Skip to content


East Indian Railway Company Vs. Tota Ram Pirbhu Dayal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All384
AppellantEast Indian Railway Company
RespondentTota Ram Pirbhu Dayal
Excerpt:
- .....consigned to them, has been decreed. the lower court, following the case of ghelabai punsi v. east indian railway co. a.i.r. 1821 bom. 443, has held that it lay, in the first instance, on the railway to prove the loss of the goods. the railway tea-dared certain evidence to prove this which the court below has rejected. the court below therefore, held that the railway was not protected by the risk-note b signed by the plaintiff. the learned counsel for the railway first contends that we should not follow the ruling of ghelabhai punsi v. east indian railway co. a.i.r. 1821 bom. 443. that ruling has, however, been followed by this court in a number of cases of which we may instance badri prasad v. g.i.p. railway : air1925all144 and east indian railway co. v. kishan lal tirkha mal.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a second appeal in a case in which a claim against the Railway Company in respect of certain goods consigned to them, has been decreed. The lower Court, following the case of Ghelabai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1821 Bom. 443, has held that it lay, in the first instance, on the Railway to prove the loss of the goods. The Railway tea-dared certain evidence to prove this which the Court below has rejected. The Court below therefore, held that the Railway was not protected by the risk-note B signed by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Railway first contends that we should not follow the ruling of Ghelabhai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1821 Bom. 443. That ruling has, however, been followed by this Court in a number of cases of which we may instance Badri Prasad v. G.I.P. Railway : AIR1925All144 and East Indian Railway Co. v. Kishan Lal Tirkha Mal A.I.R. 1924 All. 7. It has also been followed by the Patna High Court in G.I.P. Railway Co. v. Jitan Ram A.I.R. 1923 Pat. 285.

2. It is next contended that the loss of the goods was admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint. We agree with the Court below that there is no such admission.

3. The appeal, therefore, fails. We accordingly dismiss it with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //