Ex-Parte Decree - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

12Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an "ND" (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court's decree was restored, affirming the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which ...

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...