JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The facts of this case are these:— Some goods were consigned to the plaintiffs at Howrah to be delivered at Cawnpore. They arrived at Cawnpore on the 18th of September 1911. On the plea that the weight of the goods as specified in the receipt granted by the office at Howrah was shorter than the actual weight of the goods, the East Indian Railway demanded from the plaintiffs a further sum of Rs. 8-10-0 which the plaintiffs refused to pay. The goods, however, were delivered to the plaintiffs' agent and were taken away. Subsequently another consignment of goods addressed to the plaintiffs was received at Cawnpore. On this consignment the fare charged was in excess of what was properly due. The railway authorities detained these goods under the power vested in them by section 55 of the Railways Act, 1890. That section provides that if a person fails to pay on demand made by or on behalf of a railway administration any rate, terminal of other charge due from him in respect of any goods, the railway administration may, if the goods have been removed from the railway, detain any other goods of such person then being in or thereafter coming into its possession. In exercise of this power the railway company detained the second consignment of goods for a period of nearly two months. The plaintiffs thereupon paid the amount demanded from them on account of the previous consignment under protest and removed the detained goods, and then instituted the suit out of which this application arises for recovery of Rs. 8-10-0 which they had paid under protest, Rs. 5-2-0 the excess charge made on the second consignment, Rs. 78-12-0 for loss occasioned by fall in the market during the period of detention of the goods and Rs. 13-0-0 as interest on the value of the goods detained. The railway company admitted their liability for Rs. 5-2-0 but disputed the remainder of the claim. The court below was of opinion that the weight of the goods received at Cawnpore on the 18th of September 1911 was not greater than that specified in the receipt granted by the servants of the Company at Howrah. This finding of the court below must be accepted in revision. 5-2-0 but disputed the remainder of the claim. The court below was of opinion that the weight of the goods received at Cawnpore on the 18th of September 1911 was not greater than that specified in the receipt granted by the servants of the Company at Howrah. This finding of the court below must be accepted in revision. There was evidence to the effect that part of the goods was weighed at Cawnpore and was not found to be of greater weight than that mentioned in the receipt. The court was competent to act on this evidence and on the basis of it, to come to a finding on the question of short weight. If, as has been found by the court below, the weight charged for was not short, there was no amount payable by the plaintiffs and there was therefore no justification for the detention of their goods. The detention was consequently illegal and in respect thereof the position of the railway company was that of tort-feasor. It is contended that under section 72 of the Railways act the responsibility of the railway company was that of a bailee under section 161 of the Contract Act and that consequently the company was not liable in damages in respect of the wrongful detention to which I have referred above. I am unable to accede to this contention. Chapter VII of the Railways Act, in which section 72 appears relates to the responsibility of the railway administration as carriers and section 72 refers to the responsibility of a railway administration for loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to it for being carried by railway. This case is not one of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods by the railway company as carriers. The goods were carried by the railway to Cawnpore. It is the wrongful detention of the goods at Cawnpore which forms the gist of the present claim. An ordinary bailee would not be entitled to detain the goods bailed for recovery of money due to him from the bailor on some other account, but a railway administration has by section 55 the power to detain the goods. Where this power is exercised illegally or wrongfully, the railway company is liable for the illegal or wrongful detention and it cannot claim exemption from liability any more than any other person who wrongfully detains another man's goods. Where this power is exercised illegally or wrongfully, the railway company is liable for the illegal or wrongful detention and it cannot claim exemption from liability any more than any other person who wrongfully detains another man's goods. The claim was, in my opinion, sustainable and the railway company was not protected by section 72 of the Railways Act or section 161 of the Contract Act. 2. It Was next urged that the plaintiffs might have adopted means which existed for removing the goods and are therefore not entitled to the damages claimed by them. Explanation 3 to section 73 of the Contract Act is relied on. It is contended that the plaintiff's might on an earlier date have paid the amount demanded from them under protest and removed the goods. As to this I may point out that section 73 relates to breaches of contracts and this is a case of tort. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were not bound to pay the amount improperly demanded from them under protest or otherwise. The defendants had no justification for detaining the goods and are liable to pay such damages as were sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of this detention. It was alleged that there was a fall in the market and it Was therefore claimed that the defendants were liable to pay the difference between the price which prevailed on the date of arrival of the goods and that which prevailed on the date of delivery. This amount of difference, which has been found by the court below has in my opinion been rightly awarded to the plaintiffs. 3. The last ground urged is that the court below should not have allowed interest on the value of the goods. This contention seems to me to be valid. As damages have been awarded in respect of the fall in the price, interest on the original price should therefore be reduced by the sum of Rs. 13 awarded as interest on the value of the goods. I accordingly allow the application so far that I reduce the amount of the decree to Rs. 87-0-6. In other respects I dismiss the application. The parties will pay and receive costs in both courts in proportion to failure and success.