HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. Das Gupta, B. K. Guha
SUSHIL KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY - Appellant
Versus
GANESH CHANDRA MITRA - Respondent
Appeal 9 Of 1957
Decided On : NOVEMBER 26, 1957
SERVICE OF NOTICE - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 106 - SERVICE OF NOTICE TO QUIT - REGISTERED POST - ENDORSEMENT "REFUSED" ON COVER - PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27, 114, ILLUSTRATIONS (E) AND (F).
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-landlord sent a notice to quit to the defendant-tenant by registered post. The cover containing the notice was returned with the endorsement "refused" written on it. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, and the trial court and the first appellate court held that proper service had been effected. The defendant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the presumption of service under Section 27 of the Indian General Clauses Act and the presumptions of regular performance of official acts and common course of business under Section 114, Illustrations (e) and (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, entitled the court to hold that the endorsement "refused" was made by the postal peon and that it was a correct statement of fact. The court also held that the defendant's denial of service was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service.
Issues: Whether the endorsement "refused" on the cover containing the notice to quit was sufficient evidence of service of the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of service under Section 27 of the Indian General Clauses Act and the presumptions of regular performance of official acts and common course of business under Section 114, Illustrations (e) and (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, entitled the court to hold that the endorsement "refused" was made by the postal peon and that it was a correct statement of fact. The court also held that the defendant's denial of service was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower courts that proper service had been effected.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Renupada Mukherjee J. , dismissing a second" appeal to this Court against a decree for ejectment raises the question whether when the letter containing a notice to quit has been proved to have been properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post and the original cover containing the notice which is Put in evidence is found to have the word, "refused", written on it, the Court is entitled to hold, without the postal peon being examined to prove the fact of refusal by the addressee, that Proper service has been effected. All the Courts below have held that proper service was effected. It appears that in the trial Court and in the court of first appeal certain other endorsements appearing on the covers were taken into consideration. Renupada Mukherjee J. held that those other endorsements should not have been admitted in evidence or looked into by the Courts below without the authors thereof being examined in Court. He held, however, that the Court was entitled to take into consideration the endorsement "refused" as appearing on the covers without the postal peon being examined and that thereupon it was entitled to presume without the peon being examined that proper service has been effected.
( 2 ) THE argument, that unless the postal peon is examined such an endorsement "refused" is of no use and cannot justify the presumption that it was actually tendered and refused is based on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobinda Chandra v. Dwarka Nath, 19 Cal WN 489: (AIR 1915 Cal 313) (A ). Their Lordships pointed out that the endorsement was at best a record of a statement by the peon and could not be treated as evidence of the events recited therein unless the peon was examined except where there was evidence of circumstances which would allow the statement to be put in evidence under Section 32 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act. Their Lordships observed further:"proof of the fact that a letter correctly addressed has been posted and has not been received back through the Dead Letter Office may justify the presumption that it had been delivered in due course of mail to the addressee, but proof of the fact that a letter has been duly posted and has been returned by the postal authorities does not justify the presumption that it has been so returned because it has been refused by the addressee; for it may well be that it has been returned because the addressee has not been found; much less is there a presumption that the cover has been tendered Co the addressee on a particular date.
"it has to be observed that a view opposite to what found favour with Mookerjee and Walmsley JJ. in 19 Cal WN 489: (AIR 1915 Cal 313) (A), was taken in a large number of cases. There is also, as noticed by Renupada Mukherjee J. , a full discussion of the question in Nirmalabala Devi v. Provat Kumar Basu, 52 Cal WN 659 (B), where Chakravartti J. . (now Chakravartti C. J.) held that the preponderance of authority was in favour of the view that even without a peon being examined in support of an endorsement of refusal appearing on the cover, a Court was justified in holding that proper service has been affected.
( 3 ) BEFORE entering on a discussion of the question whether in the absence of the postal peon's evidence, a Court can hold that service has been refused, it is worth pointing out that in this particular case, the notice had been sent by registered post. The question at once arises as to what presumption can and should be made under Section 27 of the Indian General Clauses Act. That section is in these words :"where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.