1. In this case the service of the notice, which it wassought to effect personally upon the defendant Khetramoni Dasi, was not provedin the opinion of the Courts below, they disbelieving the assertion of aMahomedan witness who deposed to having actually handed the notice to the partyto be served, she being a purdanashin woman. The service of the notice inanother form was, however, proved, having been effected by a registered letter,the posting of which was proved, and which was produced in Court in the coverin which it was despatched, that cover containing the notice with anendorsement upon it purporting to be by an officer of the Post Office statingthe refusal by the defendant to receive the document. Upon the cases citedbefore us--Lootf Ali Meah v. Pearee Mohun Roy 16 W.R. 223 and Papillon v.Brunton 5 H. & N. 518,-- and having regard also to Section 16, illustration(b) of the Evidence Act, we think that only a captious doubt could lead us toregard that service as insufficient. The case was dismissed in both Courts onthe sole ground that the notice being necessary and not proved the plaintiffcould not maintain the suit. Other matters appear to have been gone into and largelydiscussed,--one, that under the circumstances a notice was not necessaryinasmuch as the defendant No. 3, Khetramoni Dasi, having, by her acts,repudiated the relation of landlord and tenant existing between her and theplaintiff, became thereby a trespasser, and that in this suit notice wastherefore unnecessary. Now, having decided that notice was duly given, weconsider it unnecessary to decide whether a notice was necessary or not, and weexpress no opinion upon that question at all. It must be treated as not decidedupon this appeal or in these proceedings. It is important, however, to recordthis in our judgment, because manifestly the case between the parties was notcompletely gone into, and it is desirable that nothing should be said here whichwould at all interfere with what is, we think, the right of the parties to haveon remand, viz., a complete enquiry into all matters legitimately arising inthe suit--and amongst them this question may be one--without a decision ofthose matters being in any manner prejudiced or affected by such opinion as mayhave been come to by the lower Courts during the preliminary enquiries thathave as yet alone taken place in this litigation. We, therefore, set aside thedecrees of the lower appellate Court and the original Court. We find that thedefendant, Khetramoni Dasi, was duly served with notice (Exhibit 2 put in.) Weleave for future argument the question whether or not the notice was, in itsterms, a proper one, limiting ourselves to holding that the service of it isestablished, and we remand the case to be re-tried by the original Court uponthe whole facts as appear in the pleadings. The parties will be at liberty toadduce such further evidence as they may be advised to bring. The costs of allthe Courts will abide the result.

.

Jogendro Chunder Ghose and Ors. vs. Dwarka Nath Karmokar andOrs. (16.05.1888 - CALHC)