S P GURJAR Vs. MUDDANNA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question as to whether the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid or not has arisen for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) When the matter came up forhearing regarding admission, the Advocates on either side submitted that the aforesaid question is the only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal and both of them submitted that this appeal can be disposed of by raising the said substantial question for consideration and dispose of the same on merits itself on the basis of the materials avaiiabie on record.

(3.) When the matter was taken upfor preparing the judgment it was noticed that it was not possible to write a satisfactory judgment without going through the plaint and the written statement as also the rent bond referred to in the Courts below. The learned Advocates, therefore, were requested on a subsequent date to make available copies of the plaint, written statement and the rent bond. On 11-7-1990, the learned Advocate, Sri K. Vyasa Rao, produced along with a memo a copy of the written statement as also a copy of the rent bond dated 27-10-1974. Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, the learned Advocate endorsed therein as having received the copy. He submitted that the same may be looked into. It was also submitted by him that the copy of plaint was already produced along with the other annexures at the time of filing the appeal. Both the Learned Advocates submitted that they did not have anything more to add.