SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Bom) 567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.M. Daud, J.
Bomi Munchershaw Mistry..... Plaintiff.
Versus
Kesharwani Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others. ..... Respondents.
Suit No. 891 of 1970, decided on 3-12-1992.
Advocates appeared :
F.S. Nariman with R.A. Dada, B.R. Zaiwala, K.D. Mehta and P.N. Mehta i/by Payne Co., for plaintiff.
Aspi Chinoy with N.H. Seervai i/by Eastley Lam Co., for defendant No. 1.
F.E. Devitre with S. Tejpal i/by Gagrat Co., for defendants Nos. 4-A and 5.

Headnote:Sections 101, 102, 103 and 104-Burden of proof as a matter of pleading and that of adducing evidence- Distinction between-Burden is not that easy which passes under the label of preponderance of probabilities-Circumstances though required to be singly established have to be cumulatively assessed.

       The background having been set out, it is now necessary to say a few words in regard to the nature of the burden of proof in such matters. Plaintiff is accusing defendants 1 and 2 of having been privy of forging deeds, there, helping evasion of tax payable by the estate which is now represented by defendants 3-A and 3-B, and getting away with the scam. While it may not be correct to equate the burden to prove these allegations with the cast upon the prosecution in a criminal case, the burden is not so easy which passes under the label of preponderance of probabilities. And here it is necessary to remember the text book distinction between burden of proof as matter of pleadings and that of adducing evidence. The former is con tent while the latter is shifting, And direct proof of forgery or this being done to evade taxes is rarely available for forgers and their accomplices in the matter of tax evasions know how to cover up this tracks. Recourse is therefore had to circumstantial evidence and the danger of mistaking the mirage for the reality is greater when circumstances alone are what one has to go by. The circumstances though required to be singly established have to be cumulatively assessed. It is in the light of the above factual and legal environment that the evidence has to be considered.

Judgment

S.M. DAUD, J.:---This is a suit for enforcing rights allegedly conferred under conveyance dated 20th March 1951 - hereinafter referred to as ""Ex.B"".

2. Ratanchand Hirachand Doshi was the owner of a fairly large and valuable property comprising land and structures thereon which property was acquired by him on 15-4-1947 for a consideration of Rs. 6,55,580.80 ps. (see Ex. A-95). Certain parcels of vacant land from out of this property were transferred under three different transactions dated 28-11-1947, 18-5-1949 and 27-4-1950. That left Ratanchand with land measuring 6350.40 sq.yds. with various structures thereon. The structures included Ratan Villa also known as 'Ratan Villas' or the 'main bungalow', servants' quarters, out-house/guest-house, Secretary's house and garages. The area on which these structures stood covered 1292 sq.yds. A thousand sq.yds. to the west facing the Arabian Sea was required to be kept vacant as per the Government convenient. The vacant area in bits and pieces totalled 2375 sq.yds. This last figure has been arrived at after excluding from the whole, the area of 565 sq.yds. covered under Ex.B, and that, admittedly required to be kept vacant according to the convenants of Ex.B. The purchasers under Ex.B are the trustees of an Indenture of Settlement dated 17th March 1951. The settlers of that settlement were Munchershaw Mistry, Kekobad Mistry and Dinbai Mistry. Those constituted as trustees by this settlement were Munchershaw Mistry, Kekobad Mistry, Maneck Mistry and Khurshed Mistry. Dinbai was the mother of Munchershaw, Kekobad and Maneck. Khurshed was the wife of the said Maneck. The settlors had placed with the trustees a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and the trustees were authorised to purchase property--movable as also immovable--with the corpus.

3. Ex.B contains various terms, the important ones being thus : Immediately after the preface comes the paragraph specifying that the vendor Ratanchand owns and possesses a piece or parcel of land or ground situated at Nepean Sea Road the full description whereof is given in the First Schedule which schedule forms a part of Ex.B itself. Next, comes the mention of property pointed out by red-coloured boundary line in a plan annexed to the document and marked plan A. This red marked portion, it is made clear, is to be granted or intended to be granted. The price payable by the purchasers viz., the trustees on behalf of the trust, is fixed at Rs. 103/- per sq.yd. On actual measurement the area is found to measure 565 sq.yds., its total value being Rs. 58,195/-. The purchasers are said to have paid to the vendor a sum of Rs. 5,000 as earnest money on 26th October 1950. Ex.B goes on to recite that for the consideration of Rs. 58,195/- the vendor has agreed to convey to the purchasers the piece or parcel of land or ground described in the Second Schedule to the document and delineated on the plan marked 'A'. The purchasers together with their agents, workmen, servants etc., have been given the right to pass and re-pass from the central passage of the main gate as has been shown in the plan marked 'B'. This passage is marked in burnt-sienna in plan marked 'B'. The vendor covenants with the purchasers that he has good right, full power and absolute authority to effect the sale. The covenant as to title is followed by the crucial words in a certain setting, and justice cannot be done thereto without reproducing the same at this very early stage. The recital is :

""THE VENDOR DOTH HEREBY COVENANT WITH THE PURCHASERS THAT the Vendor, his heirs... assigns and all persons... claiming title from him shall, for all times, keep the space on the West of the land agreed to be sold and specified on the plan hereto annexed and marked 'B' and thereon surrounded by a red coloured boundary line unbuilt upon and open to sky AND FURTHER THAT THE VENDOR, his heirs... and assigns and all persons claiming title from him shall not build any structure at any time hereafter higher than
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top