GOVINDRAJ GOUD Vs. VIKRANTHI AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , Counsel representing the appellant and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The only substantial question of law raised by Sri. A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant in the Second Appeal, Sri A. Govindraj Goud, the unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below is as hereunder: Whether there was service of notice in accordance with law under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short the Act) on the appellant/defendant?

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also by the lower appellate Court. The learned counsel also had traced the historical background and would maintain that in view of the compromise entered into in a prior litigation, the appellant as defendant had handed over possession of mulgie No.2-101/8 and he is continuing in occupation of one mulgie bearing No.2-101/9 only, which is the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel would maintain that it is not as though the respondent/plaintiff is not aware of these facts but despite the same deliberately both addresses were shown on the covers in relation to the service of notice and notice in fact was never served. But however, both the Courts had recorded concurrent findings erroneously that such notice would be sufficient notice within the meaning of Section 106(2) of the Act. The learned counsel also submitted that this approach of both the Courts below definitely can not be sustained. The learned counsel also submitted that in the decisions, which had been relied upon by the both the Courts below, there was no mention of any wrong number or at any rate a misleading number and in this view of the matter those decisions are distinguishable on facts. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment reported in M/s. Surajmull Ghanshyamdas Vs. Samadrshan AIR 1969 CALCUTTA 109.