Skip to content


Girish Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Kishore Mohan Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.5
AppellantGirish Chandra Ghose and ors.
RespondentKishore Mohan Das
Cases ReferredGobinda Chandra Saha v. Dwarka Nath Patita
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 114 - registered letter returned to sender as having been refused by addressee--presumption. - .....was placed in a registered cover addressed to the defendant at his residence. it was taken to the post office, registered there and left in the custody of the postal authorities. therefore, under the provisions of section 114 of the indian evidence act, the letter having been properly placed in the custody of the post office, the court might presume that that letter reached the defendant. the post office returned the letter, not through the dead letter office but as a letter which the defendant had refused to accept. it seems to me that that portion of the evidence does not, in any way, destroy the presumption that the court might make under the terms of section 114 of the evidence act, that that letter having been duly posted, in the ordinary course of business, reached the defendant......
Judgment:

Ernest Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 7th June 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Howrah. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title and for ejectment of. the defendant after service of notice to quit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree. The second Court reversed that decision acting on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobinda Chandra Saha v. Dwarka Nath Patita 26 Ind. Cas. 962 : 19 C.W.N. 489 : 20 C.L.J. 455 Of course, the decision in each case must depend on the particular facts proved in that case. One must first look into the facts proved in each case and then apply the law. In this case, the evidence proves that the notice was placed in a registered cover addressed to the defendant at his residence. It was taken to the Post Office, registered there and left in the custody of the Postal authorities. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the letter having been properly placed in the custody of the Post Office, the Court might presume that that letter reached the defendant. The Post Office returned the letter, not through the Dead Letter Office but as a letter which the defendant had refused to accept. It seems to me that that portion of the evidence does not, in any way, destroy the presumption that the Court might make under the terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that that letter having been duly posted, in the ordinary course of business, reached the defendant. It is trifling with the facts of this case to come to the conclusion that proper service of the notice through the Post Office has not been made. Each case must stand on its own facts. In this case : the only conclusion that a reasonable Judge must come to on the facts proved is that the letter containing the notice to quit having been duly committed to the charge of the Postal authorities for delivery to the defendant in the ordinary course reached the defendant. That being so, I think the service of the notice to quit has been properly proved. The decision of the learned Subordinate Judge must, therefore, be set aside and the decision of the Munsif restored. The appeal must be allowed, with costs, both in this Court and in the Courts below.

Shamsul Huda, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //