JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. This is a revision application against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for two bags of sugar forming two complete packages out of a larger consignment which were lost in transit. The lower Court has held that there was wilful negligence on the part of the Railway. The grounds taken in revision are two:
(1) That the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to sue because the Railway receipt was granted in the name of its agents.
(2) That the Court below was wrong in holding that sealing a wagon with paper only constitutes wilful negligence.
2. On the first point even if the name of the principal was not disclosed he is entitled under Section 231 of the Contract Act to sue on the contract. I know of no authority for the proposition that where a Railway receipt is granted in the name of a servant or agent the real owner of the goods cannot claim for their value if lost. On the second point the judgment of the Court below is supported by the ruling in Firm Balram Dass-Fakir Chand v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company 88 Ind. Cas. 550 : 23 A.L.J. 645 : L.E. 6 A. 340 Civ. : A.I.R. 1925 All. 562 : 47 A. 724 which I am unable to distinguish from the facts of the present case. The revision accordingly fails and I dismiss it with costs.