JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a second appeal by the Union of India representing the North-Eastern Railway from the decree of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur affirming that of the Second Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur awarding the plaintiff-respondent damages for certain goods entrusted to the railway. The plaintiff-respondent Shanker Sugar Mills Limited alleged in its plaint that it was the consignee of two consignments of unslack lime weighing 599 maunds and 624 maunds respectively; that at the time of the delivery of the goods 212 maunds of the first consignment were delivered to the plaintiff from an open wagon and 339 maunds of the second consignment, making a total of 551 maunds; that there was a shortage of 48 maunds in the first, that out of the amount delivered, 212 maunds had deteriorated and become useless because it had been transpired in an open wagon and lost its strength due to exposure; that similarly 247 maunds of the second consignment were delivered from an open wagon and in a completely deteriorated condition because of exposure; that the defendant railway did not permit the plaintiff to make a written note of the condition of the goods at the time of their delivery. The plaintiff as the consignee of the goods claimed compensation for the loss suffered by it as the result of non-delivery (shortage) of 48 maunds, and complete deterioration of 559 maunds of lime. The plaintiff alleged that the loss of 48 maunds and deterioration of 559 maunds was due to the gross negligence and misconduct of the defendant railway and its servants. 2. The railway resisted the suit and denied all liability. It filed a written-statement. I am compelled to make a few comments on the unsatisfactory nature of this document. As stated above, the plain,tiff has stated its case in detail in its plaint: In paragraph 1 of the plaint it alleged that it was the consignor of unslack lime dispatched from Jukuhi railway station to Captain ganj and that the first consignment consisted of 599 maunds of unslack lime and the second of 624 maunds of the same commodity. In paragraph 2 it gave details of the shortage and deterioration at the time of the delivery. These two paragraphs read together contained the core of the plaintiff's case. In paragraph 2 it gave details of the shortage and deterioration at the time of the delivery. These two paragraphs read together contained the core of the plaintiff's case. It was the duty of the defendant, if it wanted to contest the suit, to deny each and every material allegation specifically as provided by the various rules under Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code. But the written statement filed by the railway contains no specific denial of any material allegation, but only a blank'''. denial in these words: "I. That none of the paras of the plaint excepting the booking of the railway receipt in question is admitted". It is amazing that a written statement filed on behalf of a great department of the Government of India like the railway should reveal such incompetence in the drafting of it. This is not the first case in which have had to draw the attention of the railway authorities to the unsatisfactory nature of the written statement filed on its behalf in a suit for damages. From the vague and evasive denial quoted above it is not possible for the Court to ascertain what precise allegation in the plaint has been denied. The plaintiff had alleged that it was the consignee of the consignments; but in reply the railway stated, "None of the paras of the plaint except the booking under the railway receipts is admitted." 3. It is not clear from these sentences whether the railway was denying that the plaintiff was consignee of the goods. I must, therefore, reject paragraph 1 of the written statement on the ground that it is vague and evasive and does not contradict any specific allegation in the plaint. I must further hold that the railway must be deemed not to have denied the material allegations in the plaint particularly, the plaintiff's statement that it was the consignee of the goods. 4. The main defence before the trial court was that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the present suit and that it was not liable to any damages to the plain,tiff because the consignor had already filed a suit and obtained a decree for damages against it. It filed a certified copy of a decree for Rs. 1231/3/- obtained by the consignors Messrs. T. N. Sanderson & Co. in the court of the Munsif, Satna (Madhya Pradesh). It filed a certified copy of a decree for Rs. 1231/3/- obtained by the consignors Messrs. T. N. Sanderson & Co. in the court of the Munsif, Satna (Madhya Pradesh). It appears from this judgment that the consignors, Messrs. Sanderson & Co. filed a suit against three railways the Central, Northern, and North-Eastern, for recovery of damages, and made precisely the same allegations as have been made by the consignee, plaintiff company, in the present suit, as the consignee. They alleged that they despatched two consignments of unslack lime for delivery to Shanker Sugar Mills Ltd., and that the goods were dispatched from Jakuhi railway station in a covered wagon, but at some place in route they were transhipped in an open wagon with the result that a large quantity of lime was exposed to moisture and rendered useless and there was a shortage of 48 maunds. The Northern and the Central Railways, did not even appear. But the North-Eastern Railway instructed its counsel to appear and oppose the suit. It was contended on behalf of that railway that Messrs. Sanderson 84: Co. were not entitled to sue as they were consignors, the consignee alone being entitled to sue. 5. The trial court held that Messrs. Sanderson & Co. were entitled to sue be-cause they had not received the price of the goods and, therefore, remained the owners of the goods even after the consignment. This reasoning of the trial court was manifestly erroneous and in violation of Section 20 of the Sales of Goods Act which provides that in an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliver-'able state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of the payment of the price or the time of the delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed. On the basis of its erroneous finding that .ate consignor still remained the owner of the goods, the Court in the earlier suit passed a decree for Rs. 1231/3/- against the Union of India as representing the three railways. There was no appeal from this decree which presumably was executed by the decree-holder in that suit. 6. In the present suit the trial court rejected the contention of the defendant railway that the plaintiff as consignee was not entitled to sue. 1231/3/- against the Union of India as representing the three railways. There was no appeal from this decree which presumably was executed by the decree-holder in that suit. 6. In the present suit the trial court rejected the contention of the defendant railway that the plaintiff as consignee was not entitled to sue. It also rejected the plea that the railway was not liable to the plaintiff after it had paid the damages to the consignor for breach of the same contract. It held that the present plaintiff was not a party to that suit and the fact that the consignor had obtained a decree against the railway did not affect the plaintiff's right to recover damages if it was otherwise so entitled. Believing the Plaintiff's version that the shortage and deterioration in the goods was caused by negligence and inefficiency of the staff of the railway it passed a decree for Rs. 1219/10/- against the railway. This decision was affirmed by the learned Civil Judge in appeal and the railway has come here in second appeal. 7. Mr. Krishna Sahai in support of this appeal first contended that the finding of the court below that the plaintiff is entitled to sue is erroneous. He relied on a number of decisions of several High Courts in support of his argument that in a case of this kind the consignor alone can sue the railway for damages, because he and not the consignee made the contract under which the goods were entrusted to the railway. I cannot agree. The question whether the consignee can sue, and under-what circumstances, was decided by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the Union of India v. The West Punjab Factories Limited., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 395 That was also a suit for compensation against the railway for damages to the goods. It was argued on behalf of the railway that the consignee could not sue as the contract was with the consignor. The Supreme Court, while rejecting this argument, observed "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. The Supreme Court, while rejecting this argument, observed "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 and so we have to look at the evidence produced in this case to decide whether in the case of five consignments.... the title to the goods had passed to the Mills" (the consignee). 8. Applying the principles enunciated above to the case before me, the rights of the plaintiff, as consignee, to sue the railway for damages depends upon whether at the time of shortage or damages to the goods it was the owner. This depends upon where the title in the goods had passed. On the evidence there can be no other finding but that it had. The plain,tiff had stated in its plaint that it was the consignee of both the consignments under the two railway receipts. This allegation was not denied by the defendant railway except by a blanket denial which I have rejected as invalid. Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff was the consignee of the goods is proved by the very judgment in the earlier suit which has been filed by the railway and on which it relies. It was held by the court in that judgment that the consignment of lime was entrusted to the railway for delivery to Shanker Sugar Mills Ltd. Now, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case cited above, a railway receipt is a document of title to the goods covered by it. Therefore, the plaintiff company became the owner of the goods as soon as the railway receipt was delivered to it for the purpose of taking delivery of goods. Moreover, the storekeeper of the plaintiff deposed that the goods were made deliverable to the plaintiff company and that it had paid the price of the goods to Messrs. Sandarson & Co. There was no evidence on behalf of the defendant railway to rebut this evidence. Moreover, the storekeeper of the plaintiff deposed that the goods were made deliverable to the plaintiff company and that it had paid the price of the goods to Messrs. Sandarson & Co. There was no evidence on behalf of the defendant railway to rebut this evidence. Of course, payment of price was not necessary for transfer of ownership in the goods, but it is a piece of evidence in support of the plaintiff's contention that it had become the owner of the goods. For these reasons I hold that the plaintiff company was entitled to claim compensation from the railway as owner in case of lose or damage to the goods. 9. Mr. Krishna Sahai then argued that this Court should not award damages twice against the railway. He pointed out that Sandarson & Co. as the consignors of the goods, had already obtained the decree against the railway and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages under the same transaction and on the same facts. The short answer to this argument is that if the defendant railway has paid compensation to the wrong person, it does not affect the claim of the right person to recover damages for the loss suffered by him. In the earlier suit Messrs. Sandarson & Co. were awarded damages by the court on the finding that they were the owners of the goods. I have pointed out that this finding is erroneous because the court was wrong in thinking that payment of price and delivery of possession were necessary for transfer of ownership. Mr. Krishna Sahai contended that as Sandarson & Co. were in any case entitled to claim damages from railway for breach of contract, and were awarded damages by a competent court, no other party can claim damages for the same loss. The short answer to this argument is that as Sandarson Sc Co. were not the owners of the goods when the loss occurred, they could only claim damages for nonfulfilment of the contract to carry the goods, but could not recover the value of the goods. The value or the price of the goods could be recovered only by the owner. Sanderson & Co. as consignors, could only claim compensation for loss which was the direct consequence of the breach of contract by the railway. The value or the price of the goods could be recovered only by the owner. Sanderson & Co. as consignors, could only claim compensation for loss which was the direct consequence of the breach of contract by the railway. For example, if they had become liable to pay damages to the consignee and this liability was the direct result of the breach of contract by the railway, or the railway had notice of it, they could recover damages for the actual loss suffered by them. But they recovered the price of the goods to which they were not entitled. If the defendant railway had appeared and filed an appeal from the decree, I have no doubt that the decision would have been reversed. But the Railway cannot blame the present plaintiff for its own negligence or deprive it of its rights in this suit. 10. Mr. Sahai at one stage of his argument suggested that this Court should remand the case so that Messrs. Sandarson & Co. may be impleaded as a co-defendant. He pointed out that the defendant railway had contended in their written statement that Messrs. Sandarson & Co. were necessary parties. But it does not appear from the record that the railway seriously pressed this plea. They did not file any application nor did they press for any issue on this point. Moreover, in appeal, they did not contend before the lower appellate court that the trial court had wrongly rejected their prayer for impleading Messrs. Sanderson & Co. as a co-defendant. Moreover, I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to implead Messrs. Sandarson Co. as a co-defendant, The question in the present suit is whether the present plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation from the railway as the consignee and owner of the goods. In deciding the question the presence or absence of Sandarson Sc Co. as a party is immaterial. If the railway was made to pay damages to the wrong person under an erroneous decree, the blame lies on itself because it neither appeared in the. suit nor appealed against that decree. 11. All the arguments in support of the appeal fail. The decree of the court below is affirmed for reasons given by me above. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.