Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Transfer of Property Act, 1977
The Amending Act, 1897
Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur And Co. vs Abdul Gani And Ors. on 28 May, 1952
8. In the present case, the landlord (plaintiff) has made a statement in the witness-box that the acknowledgement receipt was received by him through post and it bore the signature of the defendant's wife. I have already discussed the findings that have been recorded by the trial Court with respect to this evidence. The trial Court has held that the defendant's wife was not at Nagpur during the relevant period. In spite of this position, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the notice would be presumed to have been received by the defendant. Mr. Somalwar urged that the presumption would still continue to be operative in favour of the plaintiff even though the trial Judge has recorded a finding that the defendant's wife has not signed the acknowledgement receipt. He relied upon the decision of the Assam High Court in Saligram Rai Chunnilal Bahadur & Co. v. Abdul Gani (AIR 1953 Assam 206). In that case the plaintiff-landlord received back an acknowledgement duly signed through post. However, at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff had not examined the postal peon for the purpose of proving that the acknowledgement has been signed by the defendant. Assam High Court came to the conclusion that such sort of evidence was not necessary particularly when the acknowledgement duly signed was received by the plaintiff through post. It appears that in that case the defendant had not specifically alleged that he had not received the notice. There was a sort of technical difficulty that the acknowledgement receipt was not proved as the postal peon was not examined.
Matadin Sharma vs Upendra Sharma on 4 January, 1972
The Patna High Court has also considered this question about presumption in Matadin Sharma v. Upendra Sharma wherein it is laid down that where notice under Section 106 is properly addressed and sent by registered post, it would be presumed that the service of the notice has been legally effected and that the mere fact that the physical delivery of notice was made to a person other than the addressee would not be of any consequence and would not affect the presumption of proper service. But it cannot be forgotten that in that very case, it is laid down that the presumption arising in favour of the plaintiff is not an irrebuttable presumption and that the concerned party can lead evidence to rebut the presumption.
Badri Prasad vs Lakshmi Narain on 12 March, 1963
9. Mr. Somalwar contended that the plaintiff would be entitled to a presumption arising from the fact that the registered notice has been sent even though the evidence about the receipt of notice by the defendant's wife is not accepted. I do not think that such a presumption would be available in a case where the plaintiff has led positive evidence that the notice was served on the; defendant in a particular manner. This aspect has been considered by the above mentioned decision of the Allahabad High Court in in Badri Prasad's case in the following words (at p. 427):
1