CDJ Law Journals

1) Heard finally with consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2) Dispute in the present petitions pertains to a Trust, namely, Shri Jagadamba Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Digras, which is registered as a Public Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, bearing Registration No. PTR No.F-1616/Yavatmal. The Trust was formed on 25.10.1986. There were seven members in the Trust on the date of its inception. The said seven members were also the office bearers/trustees. Their names and designations are as under:-

Sr. No	NAME	DESIGNATION	STATUS
1.	Kisan Limbaji Jadhao	President	Respondent No.3
2.	Shriram Kaniram Chavhan	Vice President	Expired on 19.09.2013
3.	Devendra Limbaji Jadhao	Secretary	Respondent No.7
4.	Kisan Baliram Pawar	Joint Secretary	Respondent No.4
5.	Subhash Madhukar Pawar	Treasurer	Respondent No.5
6.	Bebi Devendra Jadhao	Executive Member	Respondent No.8
7.	Badu Hatu Jadhao	Executive Member	Expired

3) The parties will be referred as per their status in Writ Petition No.669 of 2026.

4) The bye-laws of the Trust provide that the quorum of the Executive Committee as five. Clause 2(3) of the bye-laws provides that a person can be inducted as a member of the Trust with the approval of the Executive Committee. The said bye law also provides that in the event membership is denied by the Executive Committee, the person intending to become a member can make appropriate application before the General Body.

5) The authority to call General Body Meeting is vested with the President. The bye-laws provide that in the absence of the President, his duties shall be performed by the Vice-President. The authority to issue notices of meetings is vested with the Secretary. However, most of the duties which are normally associated with the post of Secretary are assigned to the Treasurer under the bye-laws. The Treasurer is responsible for maintaining records of the Trust, make correspondence with the Government and other authorities, record proceedings of the Trust and maintain the accounts. The tenure of Executive Committee is of five years.

6) The first President/respondent no.3 and first Secretary/ respondent no.7 of the Trust are real brothers. In the year 2014, two factions emerged in the Trust, one headed by the President/respondent no.3 and the other by the Secretary/respondent no.7. Both factions filed separate Change Reports in the year 2014. Change Report filed by the faction of respondent no.7/Secretary was registered as Inquiry No.80 of 2014, whereas the Change Report filed by the faction of respondent no.3/President was registered as Inquiry No.149 of 2014. Both these Change Reports came to be rejected vide common judgment dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred as “ACC” for brevity).

7) It will be pertinent to state that both factions had enrolled members who had participated in the separate elections held by both the factions. The learned ACC has held that the new members enrolled by both factions were not legally enrolled members. The said authority directed President of the Trust on Schedule-I i.e. the respondent no.3 to hold elections of the Trust in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Trust.

8) In this backdrop, Change Report No.91 of 2020 came to be filed by Ravi Kisanrao Jadhao, son of respondent No.3 (first President) and the present petitioner, son of the respondent no7 (first Secretary) on 27.02.2020. It is stated in the Change Report that elections of the Trust were held in the General Body Meeting on 22.02.2020, in which the following change had occurred:-

Designation	Old Body	New Body
President	Kisanrao Limbaji Jadhao (respondent no.3)	Ravi Kisanrao Jadhao (deceased son of respondent No.3.)
Vice-president	Shriram Kaniram Chavhan (Expired on 29.09.2013)	Pundlik Hiraman Rathod (respondent No.6)
Secretary	Devendra Limbaji Jadhao (respondent No.7)	Mahesh Devendra Jadhao (petitioner/son of respondent No.7.)
Joint	Kisan Baliram Pawar	Mamta Rajkumar
Secretary	(respondent No.4)	Rathod (respondent No.9)
Treasurer	Subhash Madhukar Pawar (respondent No.5)	Subhash Madhukar Pawar (respondent No.5)
Member	Badu Hatuji Jadhao (Deceased)	Pradip Dayara Jadhao (respondent No.10)
Member	Bebi Devendra Jadhao (respondent No.8)	Bebi Devendra Jadhao (respondent No.8)

9) The said Change Report was initially allowed vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the learned ACC. The Change Report was not contested. The President and reporting trustee, Ravi Jadhao (son of respondent No.3), had filed an affidavit in support of the Change Report. Consent letter of incoming trustees and no-objection accorded by outgoing trustees were filed in the same Change Report. Apart from this, a copy of notice of Executive Committee Meeting dated 05.01.2020, minutes of Executive Committee Meeting dated 01.02.2020, notice of General Body Meeting dated 05.02.2020 and resolution passed by General Body in the meeting dated 22.02.2020 were filed on record. In the Executive Committee Meeting held on 01.02.2020, five members were inducted in the Trust. These newly inducted members have also participated in the elections held in the General Body Meeting on 22.02.2020.

10) It is the contention of the petitioner, his father respondent No.7 and the faction supporting them that, after the earlier Change Reports filed by rival factions were rejected on 17.07.2019, both factions headed by the brothers, respondent Nos.3 and 7, arrived at an amicable settlement and the election dated 22.02.2020 was held as per settlement of dispute.

11) Ravi, the son of respondent no.3/first President who was elected as President in the elections stated to be held on 22/02/2020, expired on 16.04.2023.

12) Respondent No.3 (First President) and deceased Badu Hatu Jadhao (Executive Member) filed revision under Section 70-A of the MPT Act challenging the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the learned ACC accepting Change Report No.91 of 2020. The said revision came to be registered as Revision Petition No.47 of 2023. It was filed on 13.10.2023, after the demise of the President-Ravi, who expired on 16.04.2023. The said revision was allowed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, (hereinafter referred as “JCC” for brevity) vide judgment dated 19.03.2024. The order dated 16.10.2020 passed in Change Report No.91 of 2020 came to be quashed and the said Change Report was rejected.

13) The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 allowing the revision before this Court vide Writ Petition No.2302 of 2024. The said petition was decided vide judgment dated 25.06.2024. This Court held that since the revision was allowed on the ground that the ACC had allowed the Change Report without issuing notices to the affected parties and/or without verification of affidavits and pursis filed by them, the learned JCC ought to have remanded the matter to the learned ACC for deciding the Change Report afresh after issuing notices to the affected parties. The petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned ACC to decide the Change Report afresh by granting an opportunity to all the affected parties to file their objections and contest the Change Report.

14) Thereafter, the present respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 filed objections dated 30.07.2024 in Change Report No.91 of 2020. They denied their signatures on the documents and contended that false record was created to show elections of the trust and for the purpose of Change Report proceedings by forging their signatures on the notices indicating that the notices were served upon them and also on the resolutions, no-objection and affidavit which were filed on record by the reporting trustees in the said Change Report.

15) The petitioner, who was also a reporting trustee alongwith late Ravi, filed re-joinder/counter-affidavit to justify the Change Report. It is stated that the respondent No.3, who was holding the post of President had stepped down from the said post to make way for his son Ravi to be elected as President and that the revision application was filed in order to challenge acceptance of the Change Report only after the son, who was elected as a President was expired. A contention was raised that the fact that the order accepting Change Report was not assailed for an inordinately long period would establish that all the concerned had accepted the said change.

16) The parties also led their respective evidence. The petitioner examined himself. Respondent No.3 did not enter the witness-box. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 examined themselves. The evidence of the petitioner revolves around the procedure followed in holding the election, settlement of dispute between the two factions and acceptance of the new Executive Committee by all the members. It is stated that, after the elections, the new body, which included the son of erstwhile President, started managing affairs of the Trust and no-objection was raised by any person to the management of the trust by the new Executive Committee. In order to contend that all the persons were aware about the election and constitution of new Executive Committee, notices issued to respondent No.5 and 6 by the petitioner, as Secretary, were also placed on record.

17) Per contra, respondent Nos.4 and 5 reiterated their stand disputing the signatures and further that the entire record was fabricated by the petitioner and respondent No.7. The respondent no.3 did not enter the witness box.

18) After recording the evidence and hearing the respective submissions, the learned ACC rejected the Change Report vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2025. The learned ACC has not recorded any finding with respect to the contention of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that their signatures were forged in order to create false record showing elections. The learned ACC has held that since rival Change Reports filed in the year 2014 were rejected, the Committee was only de facto and not a de jure committee and as such it did not have authority to induct new members. It is further observed that the members who were illegally inducted in the meeting dated 01.02.2020 had participated in the elections held on 22.02.2020 and, as such, the elections are also illegal. It is also held that by issuing directions to the President to hold fresh elections vide order dated 17.07.2019, permission was not granted to induct new members. The Change Report was accordingly rejected holding that the change was not a legal change.

19) Aggrieved by the said judgment and order rejecting the Change Report, the petitioner filed appeal challenging the same under Section 70 of the MPT Act. The said appeal came to be registered as Appeal No.58 of 2025. Respondent Nos.7 to 10 also filed a separate appeal being Appeal No.59 of 2025. Both these appeals came to be dismissed by a common judgment dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned JCC. The learned JCC has recorded that signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were forged in order to create a record regarding the elections. However, the contention that signatures of respondent No.3 were forged is not accepted, since he did not enter the witness-box. The veracity of the election is doubted by recording that the alleged settlement was not expressly reduced into writing by executing a document and the minutes of election meeting also did not refer to any such settlement; regular registers were not used for writing the minutes of meetings; although, according to bye-laws, the proceedings of meetings are to be recorded by the Treasurer, who is shown to be present in the meetings, the minutes are written by the petitioner; minutes of both meetings are written by the same pen and all the signatures also appeared to be made by the same pen; notices dated 15.01.2020 and 05.02.2020 are also written using the same pen; signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the minutes of meeting do not tally with their signatures on Vakalatnama, objection and affidavit of examination-in-chief; and there is no reason for respondent No.4 and Badu Hatu to leave the Executive Committee.

20) It is also held that alleged affidavit accepting the Change Report, stated to be sworn by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and late Badu Hatu, was purportedly affirmed before Notary D. D. Rathod, who is father-in-law of petitioner’s daughter, although he is a resident of Arni and the persons who have purportedly signed the affidavit are residents of Digras. The veracity of record is doubted for the aforesaid reasons and it is held that the petitioner had failed to prove that elections were held on 22.02.2020 as stated in Change Report No.91 of 2020.

21) Mr. Shareef, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argues that the change which had occurred in the General Body Meeting on 22.02.2020 was accepted by all the concerned. It is stated that after 22.02.2020, the newly elected body started functioning by taking over the affairs of the Trust from the earlier body. He argued that the Trust is a small trust comprising of eleven members only, seven of which are Executive Committee Members. It is argued that after the change had occurred on 22.02.2020, for the first time, dispute with respect to the said change was raised by the respondent No.3 by filing revision on 13.10.2023 in order to challenge the order accepting Change Report. He pointed out that this revision is filed only by respondent No.3 and late Badu Hatu. It is also pointed out that late Badu Hatu had filed a pursis dated 10.11.2023 stating that he had not filed the said revision application. It is contended that respondent Nos.4 and 5, on the basis of whose evidence the Change Report is upset, had not joined respondent No.3 in filing the revision application and that it is only after the matter was remitted to the learned ACC pursuant to order dated 25.06.2024 that respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an objection along with respondent No.3 in order to oppose the Change Report. It is vehemently argued that the Trust runs two education institutions and, therefore, the Executive Committee Members are involved in some or the other official work regularly. Having regard to this, it is submitted that the fact that the Trust runs education institution and also to the small number of members, the learned advocate contends that the change is a genuine election which was accepted by all the concerned and that only after the son of respondent No.3, who was elected as President in the said election, expired that respondent No.3 challenged the order accepting Change Report by filing a revision.

22) The learned advocate vehemently argues that the fact that the change which had occurred was within the knowledge of everybody would be apparent from statement of respondent No.5 in his cross-examination that Ravi, who was elected as President in the elections held on 22.02.2020, had expired while he was the President of the Trust.

23) The learned advocate also draws attention to notices at Exhibits 41 and 44 issued by the petitioner acting as Secretary of the Trust. These notices are served upon respondent Nos.5 and 6. He states that respondent No.5 could not dispute receipt of the said notices in his cross- examination. It is, therefore, argued that respondent No.5 was fully aware of the election held on 22.02.2020 and had also accepted the same. The learned advocate further argues that the findings by the learned JCC that the signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the objection, Vakalatnama and affidavit of examination-in-chief filed by them do not tally with the signatures in the records pertaining to the election held on 22.02.2020 is without taking into consideration the possibility of respondent Nos.4 and 5 deliberately making different signatures on the Vakalatnama, objection and affidavit of examination-in-chief to make out a case of fabrication of records after observing silence for a period of over four years. He argues that in order to establish a case of fabrication of records, it was necessary for respondent Nos.4 and 5 to produce on record their signatures on other indisputable documents for the relevant period. It is argued that the burden of proving fraud was upon respondent Nos.3 and 5, who had lodged the objections based on allegations of fraud. It is argued that respondent Nos.3 to 5 failed in discharging the said burden. It is also argued that the appreciation of evidence is completely lopsided, inasmuch as material admissions of respondent Nos.4 and 5 during their cross-examination have not been taken into consideration. The learned advocate also argues that the fact that late Badu Hatu had filed pursis for withdrawal of revision application on the ground that he had not signed the revision application is also not properly considered.

24) Apart from this, a contention is raised that since the first authority did not deal with the evidence on record at all, the learned Appellate Authority ought not to have decided the appeal on the basis of evidence by appreciating the same for the first time and rather should have remanded the matter to the learned ACC for deciding all the points that arise for consideration in the Change Report.

25) Mr. R. Mirza, learned advocate in Writ Petition No.661 of 2026 adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Shareef.

26) Per contra, Mr. Kuldeep Mahalle, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5, vehemently argues that the learned ACC has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record including the signatures of respondent Nos.3 to 5, which have been specifically disputed by them and had thereafter, upon comparison of the signatures, recorded a finding of fact that the signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were forged. He contends that apart from comparison of signatures, other circumstances, such as the minutes not being recorded by respondent No.5/Treasurer, who is authorized to record the same as per bye-laws and the same are in the handwriting of the newly elected Secretary, i.e. the petitioner, all the signatures being in the same ink and same pen etc., have been taken into consideration and, therefore, such findings of fact cannot and should not be disturbed in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned advocate argues that during the cross-examination of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the disputed signatures were not even confronted to them. Likewise, he contends that signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were available in the record of the Trust, including the registers, which were produced in the earlier Change Reports of the year 2014 and that documents from said records could have been easily obtained by the petitioner in order to prove the genuineness of the signatures.

27) So far as burden of proof is concerned, Mr. Mahalle, argues that a clear and categorical case disputing the signatures is pleaded by respondent Nos.3 to 5. Learned advocate argues that it is not the case of respondents that their signatures were obtained by misleading them or by coercion etc., in which case the burden of proof will be on the respondent Nos.3 to 5. He contends that respondent Nos.3 to 5 had boldly disputed their signatures and the learned JCC has found the disputed signatures to be not genuine and as such the burden is duly discharged.

28) As regards the contention that the learned JCC should have remanded the matter to the learned ACC rather than appreciating the evidence in appeal for the first time, the contention is that as an Appellate Authority, the learned JCC has the authority to examine entire evidence and record independent findings.

29) As regards the delay, Mr. Mahalle would argue that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are senior citizens and shortly after the elections were allegedly held on 20.02.2020, national lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic was imposed. He further argues that the issue of delay loses its significance in view of the fact that the Revisional Authority had initially decided the Change Report and upon a challenge before this Court, the order passed by the Revisional Authority was not quashed on the ground of delay and rather this Court remitted the matter to the learned ACC for deciding the Change Report on merits by granting opportunity to all concerned to raise objections. He further argues that in view of categorical findings regarding tampering of record, this Court should not interfere with the judgment only on the ground of delay.

30) Although the learned ACC has not considered all the issues that arise for consideration and the same have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority i.e. the JCC by appreciating the evidence on record for the first time in appeal, the order cannot be set aside only on this ground. As an appellate authority, the learned JCC has the jurisdiction to appreciate entire evidence to arrive at appropriate findings independently.

31) The aspect of delay which is emphasized by Mr. Shareef needs to be viewed from two perspectives. Firstly, any adverse order passed must be challenged within a reasonable period of time, although the provision providing avenue for challenge may not expressly provide for limitation, even if limitation is not expressly provided, an appeal or revision if filed after an inordinately long period can be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

32) However, in the present case, in the first round of litigation, when the Change Report was challenged by filing a revision, the same was allowed although it was filed after a period of around three and a half years. It must be stated that the said order passed by the learned JCC allowing the revision was subjected to challenge before this Court. This Court set aside the order passed in revision and remitted the matter to the first authority, namely the ACC, for deciding the Change Report afresh permitting the parties to raise objections. The revisional order was not set aside on the ground of delay and latches in impugning the order accepting Change Report. In view of this order, remitting the matter to the ACC, the impugned orders cannot be set aside merely on the ground of delay in challenging the order accepting the Change Report. Apart from this it is also necessary to bear in mind that shortly after the date of alleged elections i.e. 22/02/2020, Covid-19 pandemic had set in as a consequence of which national lockdown was imposed in view of which invoking Article 142 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation in all cases till 30.06.2022.

33) However, the aspect of delay and latches needs to be viewed from another angle, namely whether with passage of time, it can be inferred that the election was a genuine election which was accepted by all and only in view of subsequent development of demise of Ravi, who was elected as President the respondent no.3 raised a dispute with the help of the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

34) In this regard, it must be stated that the election is stated to be held in February 2020. The Change Report was filed by son of the respondent No.3 and the petitioner. The Change Report was accepted without contest. In fact, no objection certificate and affidavit for acceptance of the change were filed on record before the learned ACC, on the basis of which earlier order accepting the change was passed by the learned ACC. However, the signatures on the affidavit supporting the Change Report as also the no objection certificate itself are disputed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5. It must be stated that one of the grounds on which the revision was allowed by the learned JCC is that notices were not issued to the outgoing trustees.

35) The learned JCC has recorded a finding that the signatures of respondent No.3 on the disputed documents appeared to be his signatures. However, the Change Report is set aside accepting the contention of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they had not signed the documents pertaining to the election and that the said signatures were forged. The signatures on the disputed documents and the Vakalatnama, objection and affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not tally. The learned JCC has made elaborate discussion with respect to the disputed signatures by comparing them with the signatures on Vakalatnama, objection and affidavit and has recorded a specific finding of fact that the signatures do not tally. The said finding of fact does not warrant any disturbance.

36) However, in this backdrop, the contention of Mr. Shareef that signatures could have been deliberately marked in a different manner on the Vakalatnama, objection and affidavit needs to be examined.

37) A possibility of respondent Nos.4 and 5 deliberately signing the Vakalatnama, affidavit and objection differently cannot be ruled out. However, once respondent Nos.4 and 5 had categorically denied their alleged signatures on documents on record relating to election stated to be held on 22.02.2000, the petitioner ought to have brought on record documents bearing admitted signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.4 and 5 were working as Joint Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, of the Trust since its inception. The records of the Trust could have been produced to demonstrate the admitted signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same could have been offered before the learned authorities for comparison of the signatures on the disputed documents. It must also be stated that the learned JCC has specifically recorded that the disputed signatures were not even confronted to respondent Nos.4 and 5 during the course of their cross-examination. Likewise, there is no specific suggestion to respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they had deliberately altered their signatures and made different signatures on the Vakalatnama, objection and affidavits of examination-in-chief.

38) It must also be stated that the learned JCC, while holding that signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not tally has recorded a finding that the signature of respondent No.3 does tally. The learned JCC has also drawn adverse inference against respondent No.3 for not entering the witness box to dispute his signature. Based on such findings, the learned JCC has arrived at conclusion that possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the two brothers, namely respondent Nos.3 and 7, cannot be ruled out. It is, however, held that there is no material to infer that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were also privy to the said settlement. In this context, it must also be stated that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also office bearers of the Trust till the disputed elections were held in February 2020.

39) Respondent No.5 continued to be Treasurer of the Trust even according to the election shown to be held on 22.02.2020. Even before the said election, respondent No.5 was holding the said post. It was easy for the petitioners to bring material on record to establish that respondent No.5 worked as a Treasurer along with late Ravi as President and the present petitioner as Secretary of the Trust. However, no positive evidence in this regard is brought on record.

40) It is not in dispute that the relevant registers of the Trust were placed before the learned ACC while the Change Report was filed pertaining to elections of the year 2014. However, the said documents were not obtained in order to lead evidence with respect to contents of the same.

41) The petitioner and the persons supporting the change have failed to bring evidence on record to infer that respondent No.5 accepted the present petitioner as secretary and deceased Ravi as president of the Trust. Likewise, they have also failed to bring material on record to establish that after the elections of the year 2020, respondent No.4 did not function as a Joint Secretary of the Trust.

42) It must, however, be stated that there are two notices on record at Exhibits 41 and 44 which are issued by the present petitioner as Secretary. The notices are addressed to respondent No.5 and 6. Respondent No.6 has not entered the witness box. However, respondent No.5 during the course of his cross-examination has admitted receipt of the said notice. He has tried to explain that he was under impression that the notice was signed by respondent No.7, who was the Secretary.

43) This document can lead to an inference that respondent No.5 was aware about the fact that the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Trust. However, the learned JCC has taken into consideration the notices at Exhibits 41 and 44. While weighing the relevant evidence brought on record from both sides, the learned JCC has recorded that merely on the basis of the notices at Exhibits 41 and 44, inference cannot be drawn that the election stated to be held on 22.02.2000 was accepted by respondent No.5, in the light of the other evidence on record. It will also be pertinent to state that the learned JCC has not only relied upon the evidence of respondent Nos.4 and 5 disputing the signatures on the record pertaining to election, he has examined the documents, namely, Notice for Enrollment of Members dated 15.01.2000, Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting for Enrollment of Members held on 01.02.2020, notice of Election Meeting issued on 05.02.2020, and Minutes of General Body Meeting dated 22.02.2000 in which elections are stated to be held. The learned JCC has recorded that all these proceedings and documents are in the handwriting of the petitioner. It is found that all the documents are written by the same pen. Further finding is recorded that signatures of all the persons are also appeared in the same pen. The learned JCC has also noticed that the petitioner was admitted as a member of the Trust in the meeting held on 05.02.2000, yet the prior notice for holding the said Executive Committee Meeting in his handwriting.

44) In this regard, the learned JCC has referred to bye-laws of the Trust, according to which the responsibility of maintaining the records of the Trust and recording proceedings is of the Treasurer, i.e. respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, as can be seen from the evidence, is a science graduate. It is nobody's case that he was not in a position to write the minutes of the meetings or the notices issued for holding the said meetings. The fact that the relevant documents are in the handwriting of the petitioner, although they should have been written by respondent No. 5, coupled with the fact that all the documents are written in the same ink and the signatures of all the persons also appeared in the same ink and the said signatures are disputed by respondents No.4 and 5, further that the signatures do not tally is a specific finding recorded by the learned JCC is sufficient to uphold the findings of fact recorded by the learned JCC. The findings cannot be brushed aside as perverse. It cannot be said that relevant evidence is not considered by the learned JCC while arriving at such findings. It must again be mentioned that the disputed signatures were not confronted by the petitioner either to respondent No.4 or to respondent No. 5 during the course of their cross-examination. Likewise, although records were available in order to show the admitted signatures of respondent Nos.4 and 5, evidence with respect to the same is not led by the petitioner and members of his faction who supported the Change Report.

45) It will also be appropriate to mention that there is no direct suggestion to respondent No.4 that after the elections of the year 2020, he had ceased to function as Joint Secretary of the Trust. Likewise, there is no direct suggestion to respondent No.5 that after the elections of the year 2020, he had worked as Treasurer of the Trust along with the petitioner as a Secretary and deceased Ravi as President.

46) Mr. Shareef has drawn attention to a statement in the cross-examination of respondent No.5 where he has stated that Ravi had expired while he was President of the Trust. The said statement is in the nature of a stray admission. It cannot, by itself, completely bind respondent No. 5. In the light of the other evidence on record based on which the learned JCC has recorded a finding of fact discarding the election, this Court is not in a position to reverse the finding merely on the basis of such stray statement. Moreover, the statement cannot lead to an inference that the election was lawfully conducted with the participation of all the members including the respondent no.5. It is obvious that on the date on which the respondent no.5 was under cross-examination the facts regarding disputed election and Ravi being elected as President in the said election was within knowledge of the respondent no.5.

47) In the light of above, it must be held that the findings of fact recorded by the learned JCC are based on appreciation of material on record and such findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It will not be open for this Court to record a different finding of fact merely because another view may be possible.

48) Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

49) At this stage, Mr. Shareef, learned Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.669 of 2026 and Mr. Mirza, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.661 of 2026, state that this Court had passed an interim order in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.2302 of 2024. They submit that the petitioners intend to assail the present judgment and order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the said interim order may be extended for a period of around eight weeks.

50) Mr. Mahalle, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5 in both the petitions contends that the interim order dated 04.04.2024 which was passed in Writ Petition No.2302 of 2024 was not continued. Drawing attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 28.01.2026, the learned advocate argues that this Court has merely recorded the statement made on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 that they shall not hold elections of the Trust in question and shall not delete the names of the petitioners till the next date of hearing.

51) Perusal of the order dated 28.01.2026 indicates that the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.2302 of 2024 was not continued in the present petition. However, the aforesaid statement was recorded and this understanding between the parties continues till date.

52) In view of the aforesaid, although, Mr. Mahalle, vehemently opposes the request for extension of interim arrangement, it is directed that till 30.11.2026, the respondents shall not hold elections of the Trust in question and shall also not delete the names of petitioners. It is further directed that both parties shall not take any major financial, administrative or policy decision till 30.11.2026.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide