JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The defendants have preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in Money Appeal No. 2 of 1967. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and the present plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, have been substituted in his place. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that the original plaintiff was the endorsee for valuable consideration in respect of the suit consignment of 25 bags of dried fish weighing 2071kgs., which he purchased at Madras. The goods as indented were booked in good condition for carriage through the railways at Madras under Parcel Way Bill no. 324134 dated 14-8-1962 for delivery at Bhubaneswar. At the time of delivery of the said goods by the railway on 27-8 1962 at Bhubaneswar there was shortage of 16 bags, weighing 1425kgs., and a shortage certificate was granted to the plaintiff by the concerned railway officer. The original plaintiff served the requisite notice against the railway and filed the suit on the allegation that the aforesaid loss was due to gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the defendant-railways and/or their employees. 3. The defendants in their written statement averred that the original plaintiff had no locus standi to sue and the notices served were not valid. They farther denied that the loss was due to any misconduct or negligence on the part of the employees of the railways, and asserted that the said loss was due to defective packing. On the above averments they contested the suit. 4. Both the Courts below have found against the defendants that the notice for the suit was served on them in accordance with law and the defendants were responsible for the loss. These findings of fact have not been assailed in this second appeal. It has further been found by both the Courts that the original plaintiff, and after his death his legal heirs-the present plaintiffs, have the locus standi to sue for damages. 5. The only point urged by Mr. Pal the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the plaintiff was a bare endorsee of the railway receipt and so was legally not competent to maintain the present suit. Paragraph 3 of the plaint is as follows :- "The plaintiff for his business purchased and indented 25 bags of dry fish weighing 2071kgs. The only point urged by Mr. Pal the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the plaintiff was a bare endorsee of the railway receipt and so was legally not competent to maintain the present suit. Paragraph 3 of the plaint is as follows :- "The plaintiff for his business purchased and indented 25 bags of dry fish weighing 2071kgs. of best quality booked in good condition from Madras through rail under P.W.B. No.324134 dated 14-8-1962 for delivery of the same to the plaintiff at Bhubaneswar who is endorsee for valuable consideration." Thus in the plaint it is specifically asserted that the original plaintiff purchased the suit consignment at Madras and that the suit goods were endorsed to him for valuable consideration and sent through rail for delivery to the plaintiff at Bhubaneswar. The above specific allegations have not been specifically denied by the defendants in their written statement. Therein, in a general manner and without referring to the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is only stated that the plaintiff was not the proper person to bring the suit. It is not stated in the written statement that the above specific assertions of the plaintiff were not true or correct. The Court below has found that in the absence of any specific denial of the above averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint by the defendants, the assertions made in the said paragraph, relevant to this question, must be taken to have been admitted and accordingly the appellants are not entitled to raise any plea to the contrary at a later stage of the suit. As the aforesaid averments in paragraph 3 have not been specifically denied, in law they should be taken to have been admitted by the defendants as per provisions of Order, 8, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. This being the position, the original plaintiff, in accordance with the above averments in the plaint, acquired ownership over the goods in question before the same were actually consigned at Madras for being transported to Bhubaneswar, though the goods were consigned in the name the person from whom they were purchased for value paid at Madras. That being so, the plaintiff was legally entitled to institute the present suit. In this connection, reference may be made to paragraph 16 of the decision in Md. That being so, the plaintiff was legally entitled to institute the present suit. In this connection, reference may be made to paragraph 16 of the decision in Md. Zaffar Haji Ibrahim v. Union of India and others AIR 1972 Orissa 101, wherein, on a consideration of the various decisions of the Supreme Court it has been inter alia held that "if by the act of delivering the goods to the carrier, owner-ship to the same can be found to have passed to the consignee or the endorsee of the railway receipt, the latter can maintain a suit for the loss, if any, that occurs during the transportation." In the above view of the law on the subject and on the above facts, the contention put forward by Mr. Pal is without any force or substance. 6. The decision of the Court below has not been assailed on any other ground. 7. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed ; but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Final Result : Dismissed