GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR versus MAHOMED HAJI LATIF & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 19-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
862 
GOPAJ, KRISHNAJI KETKAR 
v. 
MAHOMED HAJI LAl'lt-' & ORS, 
April 19, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V .. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
E'11icle11c.e-Jn1porlt111t docun1enlary e\•frh•nce wi1hheld-Tcch'1icC1l plea 
of onus of proof ca11no1 prevent adverse inference. 
The appellant claimed before th~ authorities under the Bombay Public 
Trusts Act, 1950, i11ter alia, that a certain plot of land belonged to him 
and not to the Trust of which he was Manager. The High 'court when 
the matter went before it held that the plot hclonged to the Trust. 
Jn 
appeal by certificate to this Court, 
HELD: On the evidence the plot in question must be held lo be the 
properly of the Trust. The failure of the appellmt to produce the 
account books admitted to he in his possession froht which it coul<l he 
.seen how the income from the plot was dealt with woul<l justify an atl-
verse inference against him. [865 E, 366 E, 867 El 
A 
B 
c 
Even if the burden of proof 
<locs not lie on a party the court may 
D 
<lraw an adverse inference i'C he withholds important documents in 
his 
possessio11 which can throw light on the facts in issue. 
It is not a sound 
practice ior those desiring to rely upon a certain state of affairs to with· 
hold front the court the best evidence which is in their possession which 
could throw light upon the issµcs in controver1Ey 
and to rely upon the 
abstract doctrine of onus of proof. [866 F] 
Murugesani Pillai v. Manickcn•asaka Pandara, 44 I.A. 98, Biltu Rant &. 
E 
Or.r. v. Jofnandan Prasdd & Or.r. C.A. No. 941 of 1965 dt. 154-68 and 
Bila.\' Kunwar v. Dusraj Ranjit Singh & Ors. 42 I.A. 202, rehed on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J UR!SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 954 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1963 
of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal Nos. 338 and 422 of 
1960. 
H. R. Gokhale, W. I'. Oka, S. W. Oka and Ganpat Rai, for 
the appellant. 
F 
Danial Latifi and Hardev Sin!Jh, 
for respondents Nos, 
3 
~~ 
G 
M. S. K. Sastri and R. II. /Jhe/1ar, !or rcspot1<kn1 No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from 
the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 8, 1963 in 
First Appeals Nos. 338 of 1960 and 422 of 1960. 
H 
On or about April 15, 1952 the appellant made an application 
to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region 
I 
\ 
\ 
GOPAL KRISHANJI v. MAHOMED (Ramaswami, I.) 
863 
A 
under s. 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (Bombay Act XXIX 
of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for registration of the 
Peer Haji Malang Dargah near Kalyan in the Thana District (h«e-
Dafter referred to as the 'Dargah') without prejudice to his con-
tel!tion that the Dargah was not a public trust to which the Act 
was applicable. 
n August 3, 1953 the Deputy Charity Com-
B 
missioner made an order declaring that the Dargah was a public 
trust and directed its registration as such. 
TheDeputy Charity 
Commissioner further held that among the properties of the Dar-
gah was the land bearing Survey No. 134 of village Wadi on a 
portion of which the Dargah is located. 
The Deputy Charity 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Commissioner also directed that the appropriate court might be 
moved for framing a scheme and appointing Trustees. The appel-
lant preferred an appeal to the Charity Commissioner, Bombay 
under s. 70 of the Act against the order of the Deputy Charity 
Commissioner. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. 66 of 
1953. Under orders of the Government the appeal was heard by 
the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad invested for that 
purpose with the powers of the Charity Commissioner. By his 
order dated September 11, 1954, the said Deputy Commissioner 
with appellate powers dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, 
the appellant filed an application under s. 72 of the Act in the 
Court of the District Judge, Thana to set aside the order of the 
Deputy Charity Commi~sioner with appellate powers, contending 
tliat the Dargah was not a public trust, that Survey No. 134 was 
not the property of the Trust and that the appellant was a heredi-
tary Trustee. The application was opposed by respondents Nos. 1 
to 4 who had intervened during the proceedings before the 
Deputy Charity Commissioner and by the Charity Commissioner, 
respondent No. 5 who was also impleaded by the appellant in that 
application. The respondent contended that the Dargah was a 
public trust and the land bearing Survey No. 134 belonged to the 
!rust and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.