Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society, obtained an award against the predecessor of the respondent herein in Arbitration Case No. 11 of 1971 of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Quilon. In execution of that award a property was sold in auction and it was purchased by the society. In the proceedings for getting delivery of the property Through the lower court, notice was issued to the respondent herein. He raised a contention that the sale was not proper and was conducted without notice to him. The original defendant died on 16-8-1977 and therefore the sale is illegal. He is not liable to be impleaded as defendant and the property is not liable to be delivered over to the society. The lower court upheld this contention. The revision is filed against the said order. 2. The revision petitioner-society has produced at the time of hearing photostat copies of the file relating to the sale conducted by the sale officer. Along with C.M.P. 14322 of 1988 the revision petitioner has produced copies of the certificates of posting of the notice issued to the legal representatives of the defaulter. They are marked as Exts. Al and A2 respectively. The name of the respondent appears in both the certificates of posting. Under R.74 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, if any award has to be executed as provided in Clause (c) of S.76 the holder of such award shall apply to the Registrar in the prescribed form. The Registrar shall verify the correctness and genuineness of the particulars in the application with the records and forward it to the Sale Officer for action The Sale Officer is to prepare demand notice in writing in the prescribed form giving necessary particulars and serve it on the defaulter. Where the defaulter dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, an application under sub-rule (1) of R.74 may be made against the legal representatives of the deceased and thereupon all the provisions of R.74 shall apply as if such legal representatives were the defaulters. 3. The demand notice is seen at page 16 of the file. It is addressed to Govindan Nair Raman Nair (G. Raman Nair) defaulter himself and was dated 21-12-1976. Copy of the execution petition is seen at page 17 of the file. 3. The demand notice is seen at page 16 of the file. It is addressed to Govindan Nair Raman Nair (G. Raman Nair) defaulter himself and was dated 21-12-1976. Copy of the execution petition is seen at page 17 of the file. The prayer in the petition was to attach and sell 1 acre 65 cents, details of which are given in the petition. The encumbrance certificate is seen at page 18 of the file. At page 48 of the file there is the registered letter from the Secretary to the Sale Officer, which mentions that notice of sale was sent to the legal representatives of the defaulter and the postal certificates are sent along with the letter. At page 49 is the certificate from the Village Officer to the effect that the Village Officer has effected the publication of the sale notice in the Village office. At page SO is the record showing that the notice was published in the Panchayat Office, Naranganam. The notice was published also in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta, as seen from the certificate at page 51. The Tahsildar, Pathanamthitta and Sub Registrar. Kozhencherry have also published the notice in their offices. The certificate of posting of the notices sent to the legal representatives of the defaulter in respect of the sale which was adjourned from time to time are also seen at pages 59.75 and 93 of the file. On 19-12-1979 the property was surveyed by the Village Officer, Naranganam and he prepared a plan. On survey it was found that the property had only an area of 59 cents. The plan is seen at page 86 of the file. The names of the persons who participated in the auction and their signatures are seen at pages 66, 67 and 68 of the file. The sale was conducted on 6-2-1980 and it was purchased by the Society for Rs. 13,500/-. This sale was duly confirmed and sale canned was issued in favour of the society. 4. I referred to all these facts in detail since the lower court's order is on the assumption that notice was not given to the respondent, who is one of the legal representatives of the defaulter. Before the death of the defaulter be actually accepted notice of demand on 22-7-1977. The defaulter died on 16-8-1977. 4. I referred to all these facts in detail since the lower court's order is on the assumption that notice was not given to the respondent, who is one of the legal representatives of the defaulter. Before the death of the defaulter be actually accepted notice of demand on 22-7-1977. The defaulter died on 16-8-1977. Sale was conducted only after notice to all the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The transaction in respect of this Award took place several years ago and the proceedings before the Arbitrator began in 1971. Therefore it is neither just or proper to remand this old case for fresh consideration. Therefore I am considering the evidence in this CRP, itself. 5. Subsequently the society filed E. A. No. 12 of 1983 to implead the respondent herein as additional judgment-debtor. This petition was amended by E A. 67 of 1983 by incorporating the prayer that the property may be delivered over to the society.. The respondent herein filed an objection raising the contention that be was not impleaded in execution and so the sale and subsequent proceedings were illegal. That objection was subsequently amended showing the correct date of death of the defaulter as 16-8-1977. 6. It would appear that the records of the sale were not produced before the lower court. The society only produced the sale certificate in their favour: Normally the lower court ought to have drawn the presumption that all legal formalities were duly complied with. It was for the respondent herein to prove that the formalities were not complied with. The lower court proceeded on the basis that no notice was issued to the respondent in execution, and the proceedings were taken without issuing notice to any of the legal heirs of the defaulter. 7. Confronted with the certificates of posting and other records connected with the sale, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the notice was not proper. According to learned counsel notice ought to have been sent by registered post as provided in S.104 of the Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act). In this connection reliance was placed on the rulings reported in Ravindranatha Pillai v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (1979 KLT. 486) and Kunhikrishnan v. Nadapuram S. Co-op. Bank (1987(1) KLT. 201). According to learned counsel notice ought to have been sent by registered post as provided in S.104 of the Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act). In this connection reliance was placed on the rulings reported in Ravindranatha Pillai v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (1979 KLT. 486) and Kunhikrishnan v. Nadapuram S. Co-op. Bank (1987(1) KLT. 201). In Ravindranatha Pillai v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (1979 KLT 486) this court examined the correctness of the finding of the Co-operative Tribunal that the notice may be served in any alternate method other than what was provided in S.104 of the Act. After referring to R.110 of the Rules, this Court held that notice will have to be served either as provided under S.104 of the Act or under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure. That case related to a proceedings before the Arbitrator under the Act. In Kunhikrishnan v. Secretary. Nadapuram S. Co-op. Bank Ltd. (1987(1) KLT. 201) this Court on a consideration of R.35(3)(a) of the Rules held that an 'intimation' as opposed to 'notice' may be sent by letter sent under certificate of posting. This Court also held that there was no inconsistency between R.35(3)(a) and S.104 of the Act. The question raised in this petition was not directly considered by this Court in the above said case. 8. In Karunakaran v. Special Sale Officer (1986 KLT. 701) this Court considered the judgment reported in Ravindranntha Pillai v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (1979 KLT. 486) and held as follows: "In other words, the Section permits service of notice by registered post and prescribes that in such a case, actual service or delivery need not be separately proved. This is different from saying that service by registered post is the only permissible statutory method. The section does not exclude other well-known methods of effecting service such as service through a bearer or process-server. Even in Ravindranatha Pillai v. Co-op. Tribunal (1979 KLT 485) relied on by counsel, this Court did not go to the extent of holding that service of summons under O.V of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be sufficient." 9. In Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy (AIR. 1918 P.C.102) the Privy Council held that if a letter is proved to have been put into the post office it is presumed that the letter reached its destination and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. In Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy (AIR. 1918 P.C.102) the Privy Council held that if a letter is proved to have been put into the post office it is presumed that the letter reached its destination and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. Under S.3 of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act (Act 30 of 1939), the receipts granted by a post office may be presumed to contain accurate statements. Under Illustration (f) to S.114 of the Evidence Act the court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. But the court shall also have regard to the facts, as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it. As to Illustration (f) the question is whether the letter was received. It is shown to have been posted. But the usual course of posting was interrupted by disturbances. In Meghji Malsee Ltd v. P.C. Oommen (AIR 1963 Kerala 306) this Court held that if a cheque was sent by post under certificate of posting a presumption, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that it was duly delivered to the addressee would be fair. (See also Santosh Kumar v. Smt. Chinmoyee Sen (AIR 1966 Calcutta 615). 10. In view of the certificates of posting sending notices to all the legal representatives and since there is no other circumstance to show that the notices were not served, it has to be held that the sale notices were duly served on all the legal representatives of the deceased. In this connection it may also be observed that R.74(4) provides that an application for execution of an award can be taken against the legal representatives of a deceased defaulter, who dies before the award was fully satisfied. The rule does not provide that the legal representatives should be actually impleaded in the proceedings. So the order of the lower court is liable to be set aside. 11. The contention raised by learned counsel for the society that the proceedings were under S.75 of the Act cannot be accepted. S.75 provides for enforcement of charge under S.35(1) of the Act. So the order of the lower court is liable to be set aside. 11. The contention raised by learned counsel for the society that the proceedings were under S.75 of the Act cannot be accepted. S.75 provides for enforcement of charge under S.35(1) of the Act. S.35 provides for a first charge in respect of prior claim of Government in respect of land revenue or any money recoverable as land revenue or any debt or outstanding demand owing to a society and the charge is on the agricultural produce of such member or upon any cattle or agricultural or industrial implements etc. 12. However, considering the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that a further opportunity may be given to the respondent to pay off the liability. The respondent is given six months' time from this date to pay the sale amount of Rs. 13,500/- together with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of sale, namely 6-2-1980 till date of payment. In case this amount is paid within six months, the order of the lower court will stand and the sale will stand set aside. In case this amount is not paid, the CPC. will stand allowed and the order of the lower court will stand set aside and E. A. No. 12 of 1983 will stand allowed. In that case the lower court will proceed to effect delivery.