Judgment : The unsuccessful plaintiff-Steel Authority of India Limited, which filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16, 324.90 against the three defendants as damages for short delivery of goods, is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff booked 51.660 Metric Tonnes of G.C. Sheets in 8 bundles in the first defendant Railways at Rourkela to be delivered to the plaintiff at Madras Harbour. The consignment was booked under Railway Risk. The materials arrived at Madras Harbour on 10-8-1975. The plaintiff found the packing conditions disturbed. Therefore the plaintiff requested the third defendant Port Trust to re-weigh the materials. Accordingly the materials were re-weighed on 11-8-1975. It weighed only 48-300 M.T. Thus there was a shortage of 3-360 M.T. It is not in dispute that the value of this shortage is Rs. 16, 324.90. The materials were then delivered to the plaintiff on 12-8-1975. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 16, 324.90 for short delivery alleging that it was only due to the negligence of the defendants the shortage had occurred, and the defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement while the third defendant filed a separate written statement. Both of them denied negligence on their part. Defendants 1 and 2 contending inter alia denied that the plaintiff loaded eight bundles of steel sheets wieghing 51.660 M.T., and it further denied that there was any shortage. It further contended that the consignment was safely carried and handed over to Madras Port Trust on 8-8-1975 in a sound condition and the Madras Port Trust did not make any remarks. 4. The third defendant Port-Trust contended that on 12-8-1975 the consignment was delivered to the plaintiffs men with an endorsement in the delivery note "Received 8 bundles intact in full". Therefore this defendant or its employees are not liable for any shortage. They further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. 5. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence held that the plaintiff has made an endorsement Ex. B3 "Received intact fully" while taking delivery and therefore the plaintiffs case cannot be believed that there was shortage. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation. In the result the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff. 6. B3 "Received intact fully" while taking delivery and therefore the plaintiffs case cannot be believed that there was shortage. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation. In the result the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff. 6. The point for decision is whether the trial Court was not correct in holding that there was no shortage and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount claimed. 7. It is the case of the third defendant itself that the consignment arrived at the Port on 10-8-1975, it was reweighed on 11-8-1975 and as against the weight mentioned in the Railway Receipt there was a shortage of 3.360 M.T., and the consignment was delivered to the plaintiff on 12-8-1975. Thus admittedly there was a shortage as against the weight mentioned in the Railway Receipt before the consignment was delivered to the plaintiff. 8. It is however contended that the plaintiff must prove that actually 51-660 M.T. was consigned. Now, as per Ex. B1 Railway receipt the weight of the consignment was 51-660 M.T. This being the case the Railways are bound by that weight and it is not open to them to contend that the material consigned were not of that weight. If any authority is required for this, refer to "Jugalkishore Devideen v. Sri Murugan Ghee Supply Co. (86 LW 135 : 1973 AIR(Mad) 331)" Therefore it has to be held that while loading the consignment was of the weight 51.660 M.T. That being the case of on arrival at the destination if any shortage is found only the defendants are responsible for that shortage. Ex. B3 Endorsement "Received (8) Intact fully", for whatever reason it was made by the plaintiff, will not absolve the defendants from their liability. 9. The goods consigned by the plaintiff had been carried by the defendants 1 and 2 Railways and also the Railways belonging to the third defendant in the Port before unloading. It is not in evidence as to how and when the shortage occurred. In these circumstances the question arises as to whether all the three defendants are liable jointly and severally or defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable or the third defendant alone is liable. 10. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, according to it all the three defendants are liable jointly and severally. In these circumstances the question arises as to whether all the three defendants are liable jointly and severally or defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable or the third defendant alone is liable. 10. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, according to it all the three defendants are liable jointly and severally. It is not the case of defendants 1 and 2 that the shortage has occurred while the consignment was in transit in the Railways of the third defendant Port Trust or it was in their (Port Trust) custody, and it is not the case of the third defendant that the shortage occurred when the consignment was in transit in the first and second defendants railways. In this position it would be quite reasonable and lawful to hold that both the defendants 1 and 2 as well as the third defendant are jointly and severally liable to make good the shortage. True, when the consignment was handed over to the Port Trust no remarks were made by the Port Trust. But this will not disentitle the plaintiff to make a claim against defendants 1 and 2 because it is to the first defendant the plaintiff gave the consignment. It would appear, as to between the defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and the third defendant on the other hand who is liable, it is a matter to be settled as between themselves. 11. However it was brought to my notice that in a similar case in " Steel Authority of India Limited v. The Union of India, Etc. (1981-I MLJ 126) a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Port Trust Railways being the destination Railways, it (port trust) alone is liable. But on going through the Judgment I find that the said finding was not rendered while considering a question of law but it was held so merely stating that the Port Trust Railways is the destination Railways. Therefore that finding is not a stare decisis binding on me. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed, and the Judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside, and the suit is decreed as prayed for against all the three defendants. The defendants shall pay costs to the plaintiff throughout. Appeal allowed.