( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 277 of 1984, on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Kakinada is the appellant before this Court. Having lost in both the courts below, he filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed suit for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of arrears of rs. 1,250/- and future mesne profits by contending that about 20 years back an open site admeasuring 700 square yards was given on lease to the appellant herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00 for starting a lime grinder. The appellant was neither paying rents nor vacating the said premises.

( 3 ) THE appellant herein, contested the suit stating that plaintiffs have no title to the property and he perfected the possession over the property by adverse possession. His further contentions are that the notice ex-A5 was not served on him and the court fee paid was also not sufficient. On the above pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property? 2. To what relief? on 7. 11. 1989 the Trial Court framed additional issues: whether the defendants perfected his title by adverse possession ?

( 4 ) THE trial Court examined P. Ws. l to 5 and marked Ex-Al to All on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of defendants d. Ws. l to 3 were examined and Ex-Bl to b7 and Ex-C1 to C3, Ex-X1 to X4. Ex-X1 is the memo filed by the Commissioner of kakinada Municipality and Exs-X2 to X4 are the Photostat copies of the receipts of property tax.

( 5 ) ON appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held in favour of the respondents herein and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellant herein, carried the matter in appeal by filing A. S. No. 28 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional district Judge s Court, Kakinada, who in turn confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 27. 12. 1991. Hence the present Second Appeal.

( 6 ) MR. O. Manohar Reddy raised two contentions in this Second Appeal. The first point argued by him is that Ex-A5, i. e. , the suit notice got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant is not inconformity with Section 106 of the transfer of Property Act and the same was not served on the defendant before filing of the suit. Ex-A5, the suit notice was sent by registered post on 27. 7. 1983 and the respondents herein marked the postal receipt as Ex-A6. It is true that the respondents herein did not file any acknowledgement in proof of service of notice. But both the Courts below relying on section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the notice sent in accordance with the legal requirements should be presumed to be served on the appellant unless the contrary is proved.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, except denying that he has not received the notice, the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the same was not issued notice by the respondents herein. Apart from Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a document is required to be served by post, unless different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document unless the contrary is proved. It should be presumed that the letter is delivered in ordinary course of post. It is useful to extract Section 27 of the General clauses Act, 1897. Meaning of service by post: Where any central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary i