Judgment.- In this case an interesting question has come up before me whether the endorsee of a railway receipt can, by reason of such endorsement, institute a suit in his own name and recover damages from the Railway on the ground that the goods consigned through the railway had suffered a loss. The only point that was argued even before the New Trial Bench was as regards the maintainability of the suit. The New Trial Bench held that the suit was maintainable and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment, and granted a decree. As against this judgment and decree of the New Trial Bench this Civil Revision Petition has been filed, and Sri M.M. Ismail once again contends before me that the suit filed by the endorsee of the railway receipt in his own name is not maintainable. He has cited before me a Bench decision of our High Court in Yacob Rowther Sons v. Union of India1, and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. West Punjab Factories2. Though he referred me to the ratio in Morvi Mercantile Bank v. Union of India3, it does not appear to be relevant for the purposes of this case, as, in the later decision cited by him, the ratio is fully and positively set up by the Supreme Court In Union of India v. West Punjab Factories2, the question arose whether a consignee described eo nomine as the consignee under the railway receipt had locus standi to bring a suit on the mere fact that he held the railway receipt on such endorsement. The following passage from the above decision of the Supreme Court is apposite: “ It is true that a railway receipt is a document of title to goods covered by it but from that alone it does not follow, where the consignor and consignee are different, that the consignee is necessarily the owner of goods and the consignor in such circumstances can never be the owner of the goods. The mere fact that the consignee is different from the consignor does not necessarily pass title to the goods from the consignor to the consignee, and the question whether title to goods has passed to the consignee Will have to be decided on other evidence. The mere fact that the consignee is different from the consignor does not necessarily pass title to the goods from the consignor to the consignee, and the question whether title to goods has passed to the consignee Will have to be decided on other evidence. It is quite possible for the consignor to retain title in the goods himself while the consignment is booked in the name of another person........ As we have said already, ordinarily, the consignor is the person who has contracted with the railway for the carriage of goods and he can sue ; and it is only Where title to the goods has passed that the consignee may be able to sue. Whether title to goods has passed from the consignor to the consignee will depend upon the facts of each case........” Though the law has been finally settled by the Supreme Court, yet the fact remains that, if the plaintiffs, who are the endorsee of the railway receipt, are able to sustain that there has been a transfer of the title in the goods in their favour, and that they arc holding the receipt, which is considered to be a document of title, as the consignee of the goods which the said railway receipt represents, then it appears that they have locus standi to institute the action. This is also conceded by Sri M. M. Ismail. In so far as this case is concerned, the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are entitled to the delivery and that they have paid the necessary freight, and, in fact, brought out in evidence that they have advanced large sums of money to the consignor in respect of this consignment. The lower Courts, however, did not address themselves straight on the question whether by reason of such entitlement of delivery, such payment of the freight and such advance of moneys by the plaintiffs to the consignor there has been a transfer of ownership in the goods by the consignor to the plaintiffs. As already stated by me, when once it is established that the plaintiffs, by reason of the endorsement and by positive evidence, have secured the right to ownership in the goods which is the subject-matter of the railway receipt, then they would be entitled to maintain the action. On this particular aspect, no finding has been given by the trial Court. On this particular aspect, no finding has been given by the trial Court. In the interests of justice, therefore, I feel that the case has to be remanded to the Small Causes Court for being tried afresh, bearing in mind that the only point which has to be found is whether there has been a transfer of title in the goods to the plaintiffs by the endorsement of the railway receipt in a manner known to law. With this observation the case is remanded to the Small Causes Court. The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh and additional evidence. Cost will abide the result. V.K. ------ Case remanded.