Harcharan Singh vs Smt. Shivrani And Ors. on 20 February, 1981
Similar presumption is raised under
Illustration (f) to s. 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act whereunder it He also relied
citation in Civil Appeal No.1402 of 1979
between Harcharan Singh Vs. Shivrani and
others of Hon'ble Supreme court of India,
wherein it has been held that, is stated that
17 O.S.No.6123/2021
the Court may presume that the common
course of business has been followed in h a
particular case, that is to say, when a letter
is sent by post by pre-paying and properly
addressing it the same has been received by
the addressee. Undoubtedly, the
presumptions both under s. 27 of the
General Clauses Act as well as under s. 114
of the Evidence Act are rebuttable but in the
absence of proof to the contrary the
presumption of proper service or effective
service on the addressee would arise. In the
instant case, additionally, there was positive
evidence of the postman to the effect that the
registered envelope was actually tendered by
him to the appellant on November 10, 1966
but the appellant refused to accept. In other
words, there was due service effected upon
the appellant by refusal. In such
circumstances, we are clearly of the view,
that the High Court was right in coming to
the conclusion that the appellant must be
imputed with the knowledge of the contents
of the notice which he refused to accept. It is
impossible to accept the contention that
when factually there was refusal to accept
the notice on the part of the appellant he
could not be visited with the knowledge of
the contents of the registered notice because,
in our view, the presumption raised under s.
27 of the General Clauses Act as well as
under s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is
one of proper or effective service which must
mean service of everything that is contained
in the notice. It is impossible to countenance
the suggestion that before knowledge of the
contents of the notice could be imputed the
sealed envelope must be opened and read by
the addressee or when the addressee
happens to be an illiterate person the
contents should be read over to him by the
postman or someone else. Such things do
18 O.S.No.6123/2021
not occur when the addressee is determined
to decline to accept the sealed envelope. It
would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that
when service is effected by refusal of a postal
communication the addressee must be
imputed. with the knowledge of the contents
thereof and in our view, this follows upon the
presumptions that are raised under s. 27 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 and s. 114 of
the Indian Evidence Act.