TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms notice to quit validity, applies English legal principles to Indian cases</h1> <h3>Harihar Banerji Versus Ramsashi Ray</h3> The court upheld the decision that the notice to quit was sufficient and properly served, covering the entire land in question. It found no fraudulent ... - Issues Involved:1. Sufficiency and proper form of the notice to quit.2. Due service of the notice to quit.3. Description and extent of the land involved in the tenancy.4. Allegations of fraudulent intent in framing the notice to quit.5. Applicability of English legal principles to Indian cases regarding notices to quit.6. Adequacy of evidence for service of notice.Detailed Analysis:1. Sufficiency and Proper Form of the Notice to Quit:The primary issue was whether the notice to quit served upon the tenants was sufficient and proper in form. The notice dated 9 Assin, 1317 B.S., was intended to terminate the tenancy of the principal defendants. The Munsiff initially ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the suit on grounds of insufficient notice. However, the Subordinate Judge reversed this decision, holding that the notice was duly served and effective to determine the tenancy. The High Court upheld this ruling, leading to the present appeal.The notice stated that the land was part of a jumma bearing an annual rent of 25 rupees, standing in the name of Nidhi Ram Manjhi. The notice required the defendants to vacate the land by the end of Chaitra 1317 B.S., failing which the plaintiffs would take khas possession. Despite the mention of '6 cottahs' in the schedule, the court found that the notice clearly intended to cover the entire jumma, which was known to the defendants.2. Due Service of the Notice to Quit:The next issue was whether the notice to quit was duly served. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires that the notice be tendered or delivered to the party intended to be bound by it. The plaintiffs' gomashta sent the notice by registered post to each defendant. Receipts were obtained for these registered letters, some signed by the defendants themselves and others by individuals on their behalf. The court held that the service was adequate and constituted good service within the meaning of Section 106.3. Description and Extent of the Land Involved in the Tenancy:The plaintiffs claimed that the tenancy covered a jumma of land bearing an annual rental of 25 rupees, initially recorded in the name of Ramnidhi Manjhi. The defendants contended that the land described in the notice was only 6 cottahs, whereas the actual holding was 2 bighas 2 1/2 cottahs. The court found that the notice, despite its reference to 6 cottahs, was intended to cover the entire jumma. The plaintiffs' intent to recover possession of the whole land was clear from the pleadings and the notice.4. Allegations of Fraudulent Intent in Framing the Notice to Quit:The defendants argued that the plaintiffs deliberately narrowed the notice to quit to a small portion of the holding to treat the companies occupying the remainder as trespassers. The court found no evidence of fraudulent intent. The plaintiffs' pleadings and the form of the notice indicated a legitimate desire to exercise their legal rights. The court emphasized that notices to quit should be construed to effectuate the parties' intentions, not to find faults.5. Applicability of English Legal Principles to Indian Cases Regarding Notices to Quit:The court referred to several English cases to illustrate the principles applicable to notices to quit. It held that these principles were equally applicable to Indian cases. Notices to quit, though not strictly accurate, could still be effective if they conveyed the landlord's intention to the tenants. The test of sufficiency was what the notice would mean to tenants conversant with the facts, not to a stranger.6. Adequacy of Evidence for Service of Notice:The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimony of the plaintiffs' gomashta and the receipts for the registered letters. It found that the service of the notice was adequately proved. The presumption that a letter properly addressed and posted is received by the addressee was applied. The defendants did not provide evidence to rebut this presumption. The court concluded that the notice was duly served on all principal defendants.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice to quit was sufficient, properly served, and intended to cover the entire jumma. The principles of English law regarding notices to quit were applicable to Indian cases. The evidence of service was adequate, and there was no fraudulent intent in framing the notice. The parties were left to bear their own costs due to the plaintiffs' earlier erroneous claims, which may have misled the defendants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
