Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.49 seconds)Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
49. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record
the rent receipts issued by him which are Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW
1/20 from the year 1979 onwards when he started collecting the
rent. The petitioner has admitted in the crossexamination that rent
receipts were issued by his mother and he does not have any record
of rent receipts issued by his mother. It is not the case of the
respondents that the mother of the petitioner has not issued the rent
receipts or that the same are not in possession of the respondents.
Therefore, when the rent receipts were issued by the mother of the
petitioner to the respondent no. 1, the same must be in power and
possession of the respondents and they could have produced the
same on record to show the alleged purpose of letting as residential
cum commercial. It was for the respondents to produce the rent
receipts issued by the mother of the petitioner prior to 1979 to
substantiate the claim that the suit premises was let out for
residential cum commercial purposes, but despite having the
possession of the rent receipts issued by mother of the petitioner,
the respondents did not file the same on record and, therefore, an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondents.
Reliance may be placed upon Gopal Krishan Ji Ketkar Vs. Mohd.
Haji Latif & Ors. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413 in which it was
held that, "A party in possession of best evidence which would
E345/08 31/34
throw light on the issue in controversy with holding it. Court ought
to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that
onus of proof does not lie on him. Party cannot rely on abstract
doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon
to produce it."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1