( 1 ) A claim to 'patilki' Inam lands consequent on the abolition of a Village office, came for consideration before the Asst Commissioner, Chikodi. The petitioner and respondent 1 were rival claimants. The Asst Commr, by his order dt. 16-7-1969, re-granted the lands to respondent 1 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The copies of the order are said to have been despatched to the parties on 29-7-1969, as per the entries in the Despatch register maintained in the Office. The petitioner, complaining the non- receipt of the copy, obtained a certified copy of the same and preferred an atipeal before the Dist Judge, Belgaum, on 5-1-1970. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was preferred after 90 days from the date of the order and also from the date of its service to the petitioner. The learned Judge has raised a presumption of due service under S. 114 of the Evidence Act on the basis of the entries in the Despatch register ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the validity of that conclusion, Mr. N. A. Mandagi, learned. Counsel for the petitioner, submitted before me that on the facts proved, in the instant case, no presumption, at all, could be raised under. 114 of the Evidence Act. He did not, however, dispute the correctness of the entries in the Despatch Register. But, he said that mere entries in the despatch Register are not, by themselves, sufficient to raise a presumption of due service, in the absence of an affidavit or any evidence to show that the letters, referred to therein, have reached the Post Office. ( 3 ) THE proposition about which there can be no dispute is this: When it is proved that a letter addressed to the addressee has been handed over to the Post Office, a presumption could be raised that it has been delivered to the addressee and it is not necessary that there should be a despatch by kegistered Post or under a Certificate of Posting before there could be an appeal to that presumption. (See G. H. Sridevi v. State of Mysore, (1969) 19 LR. 415. ). (See G. H. Sridevi v. State of Mysore, (1969) 19 LR. 415. ). One could have raised such presumption, in this case, provided the letter is shown to have been handed over to or left with the person whose duty it was, in the ordinary course of business, to carry it to the Post Office, such presumption could be raised under S. 114, Illustration (f), which states that the Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. But, there could be no presumption that a letter addressed to a person, as recorded in the Despatch Register, has been delivered to or leit with the person whose duty it was to carry it to the Post Office. That is a fact which has to be proved by affidavit or other evidence. In this context, I may refer to an ancient authority. In Skilbeck v, garbett (1845) 7 QB. 846. a reference is made to the decision in Nethenngton v. Kemp (1815) 4 Camp 193. Therein, the passage on the point reads :"-The plaintiff's evidence of sending a letter was that this letter was put down on a table, where, according to the usage of hi counting-house, letters for the post were always, deposited; and that m porter carries them from thence to the post office. But the porter was not called, and there was no evidence as to what had become of the letter after it was put down on the table. "on the above evidence, Lord Ellenborough held that more was necessary, and said :" Some evidence must be given that the letter was taken from the table in the counting-house, and put into the post office. Had you called the porter, and he had said that although he had no recollection of the letter in question, he invariably carried to the post office all the letters found upon the table, this might have done. "these principles have beet respectfully followed in Benarasr Debi v. New India Assurance Co Ltd AIR. 1959 Patna 540. and in bank of Bihar v. Tata Scob Dealers (Controlled Stock), Calcutta AIR. 1960 Cal, 475, ( 4 ) THE precise evidence of the nature, above referred to, is, evidently, lacking in the present case. "these principles have beet respectfully followed in Benarasr Debi v. New India Assurance Co Ltd AIR. 1959 Patna 540. and in bank of Bihar v. Tata Scob Dealers (Controlled Stock), Calcutta AIR. 1960 Cal, 475, ( 4 ) THE precise evidence of the nature, above referred to, is, evidently, lacking in the present case. It must be stated that mere entries in the Despatch register are not sufficient and do not connect the link that is so vital for raising the presumption of due service. The Appellate Judge was, therefore, in error in raising the presumption and dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. ( 5 ) IN the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether mere denial of receipt of the letter would rebut such presumption. ( 6 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute. The appellate order is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Appellate Judge for disposal of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .