has at all the times sincebeen occupied by a tenant of respondents who has each year cultivated and taken from said acre tract the crops grown thereon for respondents; that such possession of respondents was sufficient to place the appellant upon inquiry and notice as to respondents claims and equities. Huffman v. CooleyS. DN. WBetts v. LetcherS. DN. WPom. E Jur. Respondents possession gave appellant notice with the same effect as would have the due recordation of all the assignments of said contract. Ope of the issues raised by respondents was the want of sufficient notice of the expiration of the period of redemption that must precede the issuance of a tax deed. On this issue the court found as follows:That at the time of the issuance of said notice to redeem from tax sale mentioned in finding No. VIII and at the time The North Face Outlet Store of the execution and delivery of the treasurers tax deed referred to in finding No. IX that one Charles Canfield was in the actual open and notorious possession of said premises cultivating the same as a farm he being then and there a tenant of these plaintiffs; that said notice to redeem from tax sale was not served upon the plaintiffs or either of them or upon their said tenant Charles North Face Outlet Store Canfield.Appellant contends that that portion of said finding which reads that said notice to redeem from tax sale was not served upon plaintiffs or either of them or upon their said tenant is not supported by the evidence but is contrary thereto and that the Oakley Sunglasses proof was insufficient to sustain that portion of said finding. We are of the view that this contention Is not tenable. While it is true that section Pol. Code provides that a tax deed shall be prima facie evidenceof the truth of all the facts therein recited still this prima facie case prevails only until the opposite party has produced competent evidence sufficient to overcome such prima Nike Australia facie case. Peters v. LohrS. DN. W The statute In force at the time of the issuance of the tax deed in question required that such notice to redeem be served on the owner of the land or upon the person in possession of the land and upon the person Nike Air Max In whose name the land is taxed in the manner provided by law for the service of summons and that such service shall be deemed complete when an affidavit of service and the particular mode thereof shall have been filed with the county treasurer authorized to execute the tax deed. Section Pol. Code as amended by chapter Laws of . Under this provision of the law the completed service and the particular mode thereof must appear In the taxing records and procedure required to Nike Air Max 90 be kept on file with the county treasurer. When this record required by law to be so filed is introduced in evidence and it fails to show service on the owner or person in possession that of itself is evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie case arising from the provisions of section . Berry v. HowardS. DN. WWeller v. PiattS. IN. W The notice in question was addressed to N. K. Olberg J. J. Foren and M. A. Caldwell parties in interest as purchasers or as assignees of contrnct to whom said land is assessed and was signed by C. N. Nike Shoes Australia Mcllvalne as agent of Foster the holder of the tax sale certificate. The affidavit of service shows service on Olberg alone. Mcllvalne testified that he prepared the notice and directed the service; that service was made on Olberg as the record owner and the service stopped there. The name of Caldwell was plnced in the notice. The records showed the property was assessed to him. One of plaintiffs testified that the notice was not served on him or his coplaintiff to his knowledge. It will be observed that a portion of North Face Outlet the abovequoted finding is to the effect that at the time of the issuance of said The North Face Outlet notice one Canfield was in open notorious possession of said land cultivating