In Brief
A public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 sued for possession of a house (No. 878) where a saint's sacred footmarks (Padukas) were installed. The trust's registration explicitly listed a different property (House No. 55) as its asset. The defendants (occupants for 30+ years) denied the trust's ownership. The trial court favored the trust; the district court reversed, finding no documentary evidence linking the suit property to the registered trust property. The High Court restored possession to the trust based on the defendants' admission that the property originally belonged to the saint. The Supreme Court held that property ownership must be established by documentary evidence matching the trust's official registration, not by assumptions or admissions alone. The court upheld the district court's decision and dismissed the suit.", "summary_100":"A public trust sued for possession of a house where a saint's Padukas (sacred footmarks) were installed, claiming it as trust property. The trust's official registration identified a different property as its asset. The defendants, occupants for 30+ years, denied the trust's claim. While the trial court favored the trust, the district court found the suit property was never listed in the trust's registration documents. The High Court reversed, relying on defendants' admissions about the saint's original ownership. The Supreme Court restored the district court's decision, holding that the trust must prove documentary linkage between the suit property and its registered assets. Mere admissions about original ownership do not establish the trust's title. The suit was dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.