Devadoss, J.
1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Rajamundry in Small Cause Suit No. 679 of 1925. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for loss of goods in transit and defendants Nos. 2 and 4 are the G.I.P. Railway Company and the Secretary of State for India in Council. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Secretary of State has filed this petition.
2. The contention of Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice was served on the Secretary of State as required under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff who consigned at Bombay some goods has brought this suit against the Railway Company and the Secretary of State for loss of goods in transit. He gave a notice as required under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act within six months of the loss, that is, on 20th February, 1925. The Railway Administration was taken over by the Secretary of State for India on 1st July, 1925, and the suit was filed on 18th August, 1925. The question is whether the suit is bad by reason of the want of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. It is urged by Mr. Nambiar that the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, are imperative and before a suit could be filed against the Secretary of State the provisions of Section 80 should be strictly complied with as regards the names of parties, place of residence and other particulars and a suit could not be filed before the expiry of two months from the date of service of notice. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act runs as follows:--'A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carried by Railway or to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railway Administration within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by Railway.' Before a suit could be filed against the Railway Administration a claim as regards loss should be made within six months and in the absence of such notice a suit is not maintainable and as this has been decided over and over again it is unnecessary to refer to the authorities on the point.
3. The question is whether in this case a second notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, is necessary. It is urged for the respondent by Mr. Vallabha Charyulu that notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act has to be given to the Railway Administration and as under Section 3, Clause 6 'Railway Administration by the Government means the manager of the Railway and includes the Government' and as under Section 140, a notice is required by this Act to be served on the Railway Administration, it may be served in the case of a Railway Administration by the Government on the manager 'by delivering a notice or other document to the manager or his agent, or by leaving it at his office, or by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the manager or agent at his office and registered under Part III of Indian Post Office Act, 1866,' and that a notice to the manager of the Railway Administration is sufficient notice to the Government, that is, to the Secretary of State. I do not think that a mere notice to the administration of the loss of goods is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, for Section 80, Civil Procedure Code requires certain particulars to be mentioned and in the absence of such particulars the notice cannot be held valid. It was held in Radha Sham Basah v. Secretary of State for India 34 Ind. Cas. 130 : 44 C. 16 : 23 Cri.L.J. 547 : 20 C.W.N. 790 that a notice given under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 77 of the Railways Act. In order to make the Railway Administration liable for a loss, a notice within six months is a condition precedent and without giving such notice a Railway Administration cannot be made liable and in order to make the Secretary of State liable it is necessary that notice should be given under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. But it is open to a party to give a combined notice which would satisfy the requirements of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act as well as the requirements of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. In this case when the notice of the loss of goods was given to the Railway Administration, the Railway Administration had not been taken over by the Secretary of State; in other words, the Railway was not a State Railway. The question is, after a party has complied with the requirements of law at the time when the Railway was not a State Railway, is he to lose the benefit of what he has done by reason of the Secretary of State taking over the administration at a time when the right to sue, so far as the plaintiff is concerned had matured? The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that even though the administration was taken over long after the notice was given, yet the Secretary of State is entitled to a fresh notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. I am unable to uphold this contention. When the Secretary of State takes over the administration of a Railway Company or when he buys the Company, he takes or buys it subject to all the liabilities of the Railway Administration. It is not as if the plaintiff is seeking a remedy against the Secretary of State for anything done by any of his officers at the time when the cause of action arose. If the cause of action arose against the Railway Administration after the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of law in order to enable him to file a suit against the Railway Administration, it is not open to the Secretary of State to take over the administration and then ask the person who has got a valid claim against the Railway Administration to give further notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The case would have been different if the Secretary of State was the owner of the Railway at the time of the loss in which case the acts of the Railway servants would have been acts of the Secretary of State and as such he would be entitled to notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. As I said, it is open to a party to give a combined notice which would satisfy all the requirements of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. But if a party does not do that he must give a notice under Section 77 within six months in order to enable him to claim compensation for loss of goods and he must give a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, in order to enable him to file a suit against, the Secretary of State. But inasmuch as the Secretary of State has intervened at a later stage, that is, at a stage when the plaintiff had his claim ready against the Railway Company, it is not open to him to say that he must have a fresh notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. It is unnecessary in, this view to consider the Privy Council case reported as Bhag Chand Dagdusa Gujrathi v Secretary of State for India where their Lordhips held that the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, were imperatives. Lord Sumner observed 'To argue as the appellants did, that the plaintiffs had a right urgently calling for a remedy, while Section 80 is mere procedure, is fallacious for Section 80 Imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the Court.' This observation does not in any way affect the present question. As I said if the Railway was a State Railway under Government at the time the loss occurred notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, would be imperative. In Radha Sham Basah v. Secretary of State for India 34 Ind. Cas. 130 : 44 C. 16 : 23 Cri.L.J. 547 : 20 C.W.N. 790 it was held that notice given to the Collector under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. There, the notice was given within six months and the suit was after two months after the date of notice, so that the notice to the Collector, under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was held to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Railways Act.
4. In this case Exs. B and B(1) show that the plaintiff not only complained of the loss of goods and claimed compensation but gave notice of suit inasmuch' as he distinctly stated that he should have early remittance of the amount claimed and in default he would be put to the necessity of seeking relief in a Court of Law. I think this is sufficient notice of suit so far as the Railway Administration was concerned. The Secretary of State having taken over the Administration of the Railway Company stands in the shoes of the Railway Administration which he took over and, therefore, the suit which is good against the Railway Administration is also good against him. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.