https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275466 In an ejectment action founded on forfeiture of a lease, the absence of a notice in writing under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal where it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement or at trial. The text explains that matters showing non-maintainability must be distinctly pleaded, and conditions precedent are treated as implied unless specifically denied. It also notes that a defendant who has asserted a hostile title cannot consistently rely on lack of notice as a defence to cause of action or maintainability. On that footing, the suit is treated as maintainable on forfeiture. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:17:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275466 In an ejectment action founded on forfeiture of a lease, the absence of a notice in writing under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal where it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement or at trial. The text explains that matters showing non-maintainability must be distinctly pleaded, and conditions precedent are treated as implied unless specifically denied. It also notes that a defendant who has asserted a hostile title cannot consistently rely on lack of notice as a defence to cause of action or maintainability. On that footing, the suit is treated as maintainable on forfeiture. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275466