NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BALAJIWALE versus GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 22-09-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
773 
NARAYAN BHAGW ANTRAO GOSA VI 
f' 
BALAJIWALE 
v. 
GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI AND OTHERS 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., S. K. DAS and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Charitable and Religious Trust-Test-Inference drawn from 
documents, if and when a question of law-Burden of proof, meaning 
of-Admission, evidcntiary value of-Frame of suit-Deity, if a 
necessary party-Charitable and Religious Ti•usts Act, z920 (I4 of 
z920), s. 5(3). 
The question for determination in this appeal, arising out of 
a suit filed by the appellant under s. 5(3) of the Charitable and 
Religious Trusts Act, 1920, was whether the ancient temple of 
Shri Balaji Venkatesh at Nasik and its Sansthan constituted a 
charitable and religious trust within the meaning of the Act. 
The deity was Swayambhu and revealed itself in a dream to one 
Ganapati Maharaj who. at its behest, brought the deity from the 
river Tambraparni and installed it in his house. Ganapati's rnn 
Timmaya, who removed the deity to Nasik, took the idol to the 
courts of Rulers and acquired the properties in suit consisting of 
lands and cash. Timmaya's eldest son obrained an extensiv.e 
plot of land as a gift from the Peshwa and thereon built a vast 
temple with a Sabha Mandap which could accommodate no less 
than 600 persons and installed the deity in the first floor with a 
staircase leading straight to it. The Hindu public has been 
worshipping at the temple for more than 200 years and there was 
no evidence to show that they had ever been excluded from it 
and any gift had ever been refused. The ceremonies performed 
in the temple were appropriate to a public deity. It was admitted 
by the sons of Timmaya in Tahanama, executtd by them in 1774· 
that the Inam villages were granted for the wor,hip of the deiry 
and the temple belonged to the Sansthan, none of t~em having 
any share in it. In the Tharav Y adi of 1800, the maintenance 
allowance provided by the said Tahanama for the different 
branches of the family was described as 'Vetan'. The Inam 
Commissioner, functioning under Act II of 1852, recorded the 
Inam villages as permanently held Debasthan inams at the 
instance of t1.e then Sthanic and on the basis of original sanads 
filed by him, reversing the decision of the Assistant Inam 
Commissioner who had recorded them as personal inams. Those 
sanads were not filed in the suit. In 1931 the appellant published 
a history of the Sansthan wherein it was clearly stated that the 
Sansthan was not a private or family property but was the 
property of the deity, the members of the family being merely 
the managers. The deity was not made a party to the suit 
although representatives of the Hindu public were joined as 
98 
r959 
September 1111 
z959 
Natayan 
Bhagwantrao 
Gosavi Balajiwale 
I 
v. 
G11pal 
Vinayak Gosavi 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) 
parties under 0. r, r. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 
High Court, while it concurred w1\h the trial Judge in holding 
that the deity was a public deity and that its Sansthan constituted 
a public trust, was. however, inclined to hold that some of the 
properties might be per>onal properties of the appellant but 
refused to grant any such declaration on the ground that no 
effective decree could be passed against the deity in its absence. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant in this court that 
the courts belo'v had misconstrued the document and were wrong 
in drawing the inferences they did and that the burden of proof 
had been wrongly placed on the appellant to prove by positive 
evidence that the deity was a family deity and the properties his 
private properties. 
Held, that the courts below were right in coming to the 
conclusion they reached, and the appeal must fail. 
A mistaken inference drawn from documents is no less a 
finding of fact, if there is no misconstruction of the docnments 
and no misconstruction of documents having been proved, the 
appellant could not succeed. 
An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can 
rely upon, and, although it is not conclusive. is often decisive of 
the matter unless it can be successfully withdrawn or proved to 
be erroneous. 
The expression "burden of proof " means one of two things 
(r) that a party has to prove an allegation before it is entitled to 
a judgment in its favour, or (2) that the one or the other of the 
two contending parties has to introduce evidence on a contested 
issue. The question of onus is material only where the 

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