MOHIM CHANDRA BASAK CHOWDHURY Vs. RUP MANJARI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit for ejectment. It was decreed by the Courts below and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 appeal.

(2.) The first point taken on their behalf is purely technical, it is to the effect that the notice was not proved to have been properly served on all the defendants. It appears from the finding of the Munsif on this point, which has not been displaced by the District Judge, that the post-peon went to the family dwelling house with the notices for all the defendants. Several of the defendants were present and all those who were present saw the covers and refused to accept them. A notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, may be delivered to one of the family of the person intended to be bound by it or to his servants at his residence. The Munsif found, as a. matter of fact, that the appellants were members of the same family and the District Judge appears to have accepted this finding, for he says: I am satisfied that the post-man went to the family dwelling house of the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and tendered delivery of the registered cover containing the notices in question." It seems to us that on these findings of fact the requirements of Section 106 have been fulfilled. In any case, it is evident that there are no merits in the objection for, under the circumstances, all the defendants must have known perfectly well of the plaintiff s proceedings.

(3.) The second point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the District Judge has omitted to consider how their plea that they had a permanent interest in the land is affected by the evidence which has been given that the land has been inherited by them from their ancestors. But neither from the judgment of the Munsif nor from that of the District Judge does it appear that any specific instance of inheritance was pressed upon the attention of either of the Courts. All that has been suggested before us is that the persons now holding the land belong to the generation next below that of the original lessees. It appears to us impossible to hold that the descent of a lease-hold property for one generation should, as a matter of law, raise the presumption that the lessees have a permanent interest. If such a view were adopted, it appears to us that no landlord would be safe.