Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.40 seconds)Section 14 in The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Surajmull Ghanshyamdas vs Samadarshan Sur on 9 May, 1968
No doubt, strong reliance was placed on the decisions referred in Sharad v. Vishnu and Surajmull v. Samadarashan (supra) and a stand was taken that in the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court should have confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and reversing the same is bad in law.
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Sharad vs Vishnu on 4 April, 1977
"I agree with the said decision of the Allahabad High Court. Thus, there cannot be any irrebuttable presumption in favour of the proper service of notice simply because the notice had been sent as required by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar & Ors on 4 March, 1976
In the decision referred in State of Madras v. K.N. Shanmugha Mudaliar (supra) the Apex Court also had expressed the same view on the availability of presumption relating to service of quit notice under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The main grievance ventilated by the learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant is that inasmuch as the presumption available relating to the service of quit notice being a rebuttable presumption, when once evidence in relation thereto had been adduced and the evidence of P.W.2 was found to be not trustworthy, then, the effect of presumption available under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is diluted and in view of the same, especially in the light of Section 14 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it cannot be said that the service of quit notice on appellant/defendant had been established by the plaintiff in accordance with law. Virtually the stand taken by the appellant/defendant is that though without letting any further evidence on the aspect of service of quit notice presumption is available, when once the evidence is let in, the plaintiff would be placed in an inferior position, no doubt, in the event of the Court arriving at a conclusion that such evidence cannot be believed or the same is not trustworthy. I had given my anxious consideration to the evidence available on record in general and the evidence of P.W.2 in particular. It is pertinent to consider the conduct of the appellant/defendant also in this regard. The Appellate Court had recorded a finding at para-23 that the plea that he was not available at the relevant point of time since he had been to Tirupati was not taken and hence this said stand taken by the appellant/defendant cannot be believed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the Appellate Court had discussed the evidence of P.W.I to P.W.3 and Ex.A-1 - lawyer's notice, Ex.A-2 - returned cover and the evidence of D.W.I and Exs.B-1 to B-6 and had recorded findings in detail giving reasons why the appellate Court was inclined to reverse the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, P.W.1 deposed about the case. Equally, D.W.I also had deposed his case. The crucial evidence on which much comment was made is in relation to the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 had deposed that he had been working as Postman since 1984 at Gajuwaka Post Office and there were 10 Postmen in the said Post Office and since 1992 onwards he has been distributing letters near Srikanya Theatre area and the writing on the reverse of Ex.A-2 postal cover was that of himself on 18-12-1996, 19-12-1996 and 20-12-1996 and he went to the said address on the cover and he was informed that the addressee was not available and on 23-12-1996 again he had gone to the address to serve but the cover was refused and hence he endorsed "refused" on the cover and hence returned to the sender. P.W.2 also deposed that he had handed over the cover to the Branch Clerk and the same was noted in the Register by the Clerk. The said Register would be kept for 18 months and thereafter the same will be destroyed by the Head Office. In cross-examination, certain questions relating to postal Rules and Regulations were put to this witness and no doubt P.W.2 deposed that he endorsed as "refused" and he cannot recollect the situation what exactly happened even by seeing the endorsement and he does not remember that on 23-12-1996 the defendant was out of station and instead of endorsing the same he simply endorsed as "refused" and it is true that as per rule they can use the rubber stamp. However he stated that only the postman who got permission from Postal Superintendent can use the rubber stamp. He specifically denied that the endorsement made on the cover is a false one and other suggestions also had been specifically denied.
Ravula Rama Krishna vs Shaik Mahboob Basha on 20 August, 1996
In the decision referred in Ravula Rama Krishna v. Shaik Mahboob Basha (supra), it was held at paras 11 and 12 as hereunder:
Smt. Ram Shree vs Smt. Khadija Bibi And Anr. on 1 May, 1980
In the decision referred in Ram Shree v. Khadija Bibi (supra), it was held:
Mohammed Indris Mian vs Doman Sah on 23 August, 1977
After referring to the various earlier decisions of the same Court including the Division Bench decision reported in Abdul Jaleel v. Haji Abdul Jaleel , the decision reported in Budh Sen v. Rahiman and the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Mohammad Idris Mian v. Doman Sah , it is observed by His Lordship that a notice to quit need not be worded with the accuracy of quit and that if the intention to terminate the tenancy is clearly made out, such notice is a valid notice to quit.