JUDGMENT Trivedi, J. - This is a plaintiff's second civil appeal against the judgment and decree of the Second Civil Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal and confirm.- in- the decree of the trial court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for realisation of Rs. 730 as damages. The plaintiff's case was that on 7-11-1958 two wagons of fuel wood were loaded by him for being despatched to Prayag, but the railway receipts were not delivered on 7-11-1958. Another Station Master took charge on 8-11-1958 and the railways receipts were not delivered on that day as well. On 9th November, 1958 the Station Master demanded some illegal sum and on the plaintiff's refusal to pay, he was told to pay a sum of Rs. 35 per svagaon as demurrage. The plaintiff protested and told the Station Master that the wagons should have been booked to Prayag Station and not to Allahabad Junction station. When the railway receipts were not delivered to the plaintiff till 12-11-1958, the plaintiff complained to the D.V.S. Jhansi and A.O.C.I. Banda. It was also stated that several letters thereafter were sent to the authorities complaining against the action of the railway administration but to no effect. The suit out of which this appeal arises was then filed after notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act for damages. The two Station Masters who were incharge of the railway station on 7-11-1968 and 8-11-1968 were also made parties, and the relief was sought against them also for their wrongful action. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay and the General Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi. In the written statement filed by them the liability was denied, and it was contended that the plaintiff Ram Khelawan refused to take the delivery of consigned goods which were subsequently sold by auction on 3-10-1959 after notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Railway Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, the Station Master, it was stated that the senders did not turn up at all to demand the railway receipts on 8-11-1958, but their representative Sri Prahlad, who supervised the loading was directed to tell the owners to come with demurrage charges of Rs. 35.95 per wagon and get the railway receipts. 35.95 per wagon and get the railway receipts. It was further stated that on 12-11-1958 railway receipts were demand- ed by Sri Jageshwar Prasad without payment of demurrage charges.- The allegation that the defendant demanded illegal gratification wag-denied. This defendant also denied that any loss was caused to the plaintiff by his misconduct. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 i.e. the General Manager Northern Railway it was also mentioned that the complaint of the plaintiff was enquired into and found incorrect. Defendant No. 6 who was the Station Master till 7-11-1958, in his written statement stated that the wagons were placed at the disposal of the plaintiff at 10.30 but the two wagons were under loading on that day. He also denied his liability for the damages. A number of issues were framed by the trial court. The suit of the plaintiff, however, was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court holding that the suit was for non-delivery of goods as such Article 31 of the Limitation Act would apply. 2. According to the plaint allegations the plaintiff was deprived of the goods and was not handed over railway receipt under which he could take the delivery of the goods. Under Article 31 of the Limitation Act a suit against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery or delay in delivering goods has to be filed within one year from the time when the goods ought to have been delivered. The railway receipt in the instant case was not delivered to the sender rather it was withheld by the station master of the starting station. The record further shows that the loaded wagons were despatched to Allahabad Junction Station and invoices of the wagons were also sent to Allahabad junction station by adding demurrage charges on 11-11-1958. No explanation is given why the R. R. was not delivered to the sender when the invoices were despatched by adding demurrage charges. No rule is brought to my notice authorising the railway authorities to withheld the railway receipt even after the goods are despatched to the destination station by adding demurrage charges in the invoices. No explanation is given why the R. R. was not delivered to the sender when the invoices were despatched by adding demurrage charges. No rule is brought to my notice authorising the railway authorities to withheld the railway receipt even after the goods are despatched to the destination station by adding demurrage charges in the invoices. The goods at the destination station could only be collected against the R. R. and if the R. R. is not delivered the sender cannot be penalised for not taking delivery of the goods unless notice of willingness to deliver the good is given to the sender. The manner in which the goods were auctioned is also relevant for the purposes of deciding if Article 31 of the Limitation Act will be applicable or not. Para. 15 of the written statement of defendant No. 2 is as under : "That the plaintiff wrongfully refused to take the delivery of the consigned which were then subsequently sold by auction on 3-10-1959 after due notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Railways Act". Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act, under which protection is sought for the action, do not support the defendant's case. The purpose of Section 55 is to create a lien of the railway in respect of charges payable for the goods and to authorise the railway to sell the goods by auction after notice to the owner. Section 56 authorises the railway to dispose of the unclaimed goods by auction after notice to the consignee. It is not the case of the railway that the goods did not reach the destination. It is also not the case that the owner was not known or that the notice could not be served on the owner. If the case of the railway had been that the owner was not known then also from the facts proved the story could not be believed. The notices purported to have been sent to the owners are Exts. A22 and A27 on record and addressed as under : Ram Khelawan, Firewood Merchant, Rohilpurwa, Dt. Banda. Moti Man, Firewood Merchant, Rohilpurwa, Dt. Banda. These notices are dated 20-12-1958 and appear to have been despatched under the signature of Station Master Rohilpurwa. The notices purported to have been sent to the owners are Exts. A22 and A27 on record and addressed as under : Ram Khelawan, Firewood Merchant, Rohilpurwa, Dt. Banda. Moti Man, Firewood Merchant, Rohilpurwa, Dt. Banda. These notices are dated 20-12-1958 and appear to have been despatched under the signature of Station Master Rohilpurwa. These were returned unserved by the endorsement dated 30-12-1958 which is to the following effect : " bl uke dk vkneh ;gkWa ugha gSA vr% okil fd;k tk;A" A sale notice dated 26-12-1958 also appears to have been given by the Goods inspector, Northern Railway, at the above address and the same boards an endorsement to the effect : "Returned with the remark that the party has no trade at Rohilpurwa and they are not available at Rohilpurwa." This notice is not proved. The endorsement is not signed by anyone and does not appear to have been sent by post. These notices cannot be deemed to have been served on the sender. 3. Next it has to be seen if the address given on the notice was correct. A scrutiny of the record will show that the address given on the notice was not only incorrect but was deliberately given to avoid service. 4. The railway receipt though it contains a column of address of the sender is blank. The plaintiff has protested against the behaviour of the Station Master and the Station Master too had complained against one Jageshwar who was described as the influential Zamindar and the real owner of the goods. Railway authorities were enquiring into the matter. By letter dated 25-11-1958 of the Assistant District Commercial Inspector it appears that Ram Khelawan's address was clo Baijnath, Prasad Gupta, Fadwale, Karvi. "The Divisional Superintendent Jhansi has also been addressing letters to Ram Khelawan c/o Baijnath Prasad Gupta, Grain Fadwale, Nayabazar, Karvi. Before the goods were auctioned the sender through his counsel had on 22-4-1959 given notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act. The notice also gave the address of the plaintiff and that of the Advocate. The facts mentioned above lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Station Master of Rohilpurwa had deliberately avoided to serve notice of auction and the railway authorities were equally guilty of auctioning the goods without notice to the sender. The record of the case also shows that a sum of Rs. The facts mentioned above lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Station Master of Rohilpurwa had deliberately avoided to serve notice of auction and the railway authorities were equally guilty of auctioning the goods without notice to the sender. The record of the case also shows that a sum of Rs. 35 per wagon was deposited by the sender as security when he had applied for the wagons. The demurrage charges, if any, could have been adjusted from the security amount and the railway receipt delivered to the owner. No explanation has been given why this was not done. The goods were in the custody of the railway when the notice under Section 77 Railways Act read with Section 80, C. P. C. was served on it and yet no effort whatsoever appears to have been made to offer the goods. Article 31 of the Limitation Act will not apply where the goods are in the custody of the railway on the date of notice under. Section 77 and are subsequently disposed of wrongfully. The goods till they were auctioned were the property of the owner. The railway had only a lien of charges. 5. Article 31 of the Limitation Act will apply to cases where the goods are not delivered on account of the inability of the railway to deliver the goods. Article 48 of the Limitation Act is as under : For specific moveable property lost or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation, or conversion or for compensation for wrongfully taking or detaining the same Three years When the party having the right to the possession first learns in whose possession it is. An act of conversion may be committed : (1) when property is wrongfully parted with; (2) when it is wrongfully parted with; (3) when it is wrongfully sold in market.; (4) when it is wrongfully retained; (5) when it is wrongfully destroyed or changed in nature. (Clerk and Linsell on Torts) . 6. The act of the railway authorities in selling the goods without notice to the owner was tortious act of conversion and the suit having been filed within three years from the date of auction was well within time. 7. (Clerk and Linsell on Torts) . 6. The act of the railway authorities in selling the goods without notice to the owner was tortious act of conversion and the suit having been filed within three years from the date of auction was well within time. 7. In Nawab Boot House v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1935 Allahabad 156 it was laid down that : "A suit for damages for wrongfully conversion is not for compensation for non-delivery but one for damages and as such Article 31 is not applicable." The courts below were therefore wrong in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation. The suit is for actual price of goods amounting to Rs. 697 plus Rs. 33 claimed on account of notice charges. The price of goods is not challenged and no evidence is led to disprove the price of goods. The charges for notice are also reasonable. 8. It has next been contended that the plaintiff's suit for both the wagons could not be decreed when one wagon was despatched in the name of Motiman. The plaintiff throughout has been asserting that lie was the real owner of the goods. Motiman has been made a defendant in the suit. In the notice under Section 77 Railways Act it is further stated that in spite of several letters of protest for non-delivery of railway no reply was given to him. Motiman has not contested the claim of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff therefore cannot be rejected with respect to one wagon of fuel wood. 9. Lastly it is contended by the respondent that the suit being of the nature of small causes and of less than Rs. 1,000 no second appeal lay under Section 102, C. P. C. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit was for damages for wrongful conversion and as such was not a suit of the nature of small causes. He further prayed that the memorandum be treated as a revision in case no appeal lies. The wrong application of Limitation Act has been recognised as wrongful exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court and even if no appeal lies I am prepared to entertain the petition as a revision. 10. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed and the plaintiff' suit is decreed for realisation of Rs. The wrong application of Limitation Act has been recognised as wrongful exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court and even if no appeal lies I am prepared to entertain the petition as a revision. 10. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed and the plaintiff' suit is decreed for realisation of Rs. 730 with costs throughout against defendant respondents Nos. 1 to 4.