Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment upon anotice to quit. The defence was limitation, denial of the plaintiffs right,denial of the notice, and a plea that a part of the land in dispute belonged tothe defendant and had been held by him for twelve years, and that the defendanthad acquired a right to the whole of the land in dispute by twelve yearsAdverse possession.

2. The first Court found for the plaintiffs upon all thequestions raised, except one, namely, that as to the defendants title byadverse possession to 1 3/4 cottahs of land out of the land in dispute, and itaccordingly gave the plaintiffs n decree for the land in dispute excepting 13/4 cottahs.

3. Against this decree of the first Court the defendantpreferred an appeal, and the plaintiffs a cross-appeal. The Lower AppellateCourt has dismissed the plaintiffs cross-appeal, holding that they have failedto make out their title to 1 3/4 cottahs in regard to which their claim hadbeen disallowed by the first Court, and it has decreed the defendants appealon the sole ground that the notice is bad in law, that is to say, bad becauseit includes some land which the defendant is found not to hold under theplaintiffs.

4. In second appeal it is contended for theplaintiffs-appellants that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court, so far asit decreed the defendants appeal, is wrong in law, and that the notice,notwithstanding the defect found in it, was not so bad as to disentitle theplaintiffs to maintain a suit in ejectment upon the basis thereof.

5. We are of opinion that the plaintiffs contention issound. The notice requires the defendant to give up possession of 1 bigha and 5chittacks of homestead land with tank, situate in the Bazar of Diamond Harbour,Pergunnah Mooragacha, Zillah 24-Pergunnahs, held under the plaintiffs astenant-at-will. The notice does not set out the boundaries of the land. Theonly defect that has been found in the notice is that, whereas it states thearea of the defendants holding to be 1 bigha and 5 chittacks, the true area is1 3/4 cottahs less. And the question is, whether that is a defect in the noticesufficient to justify our holding that the notice is bad in law. Consideringthat the error is only one in relation to the area, and is a very small error,and considering that the defendant never took any objection that he was misledby reason of this defect in the notice, we think it would be wrong to hold thata defect like this is sufficient to vitiate the notice. To bold that anytrifling error in the statement of the area vitiates a notice to quit, would beto throw an unnecessary difficulty in the way of parties seeking ejectment uponservice of notice, and to require them to measure their lands and to set outthe areas with a degree of accuracy which the ordinary purposes of life do notrender it necessary for them to observe. As was remarked by Mr. JusticePatteson in Doe d. Williams v. Smith (1836) 5 A. E. 350 it is not required thata notice should be worded with the accuracy of a plea. The view we take issupported also by the cases of Doe d. Cox 1(1803) 4 Esp. 185 ; 6 R R 850 ] andDoe, Lessee of Rodd v. Archer (1811) 14 East. 245; 12 RR 509 .

6. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is, upon thequestion of the validity of the notice, therefore, in our opinion, wrong inlaw, and must be set aside, and the case sent back to that Court in order thatthe other questions raised in the appeal of the defendant before that Court maybe disposed of. Costs will abide the result.

.

Shama Churn Mitter and Ors.vs. Wooma Churn Haldar (13.07.1897- CALHC)