Important documentary evidence withheld--Technical plea of onus of proof cannot prevent adverse inference.
On the evidence the, plot in question must be held to be the property of the Trust. The failure of the appellant to produce the account books admitted to be in his possession from which it could be seen how the income from the plot was dealt with would justify an adverse inference against him.
Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts in issue. It is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of affairs to withhold from the court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.
Supreme Court of India
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1413, 1968 SCR (3) 862
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/09/important-documentary-evidence-withheld.html
