1 fa901 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.901 OF 2011 Zarir Rustom Joshi ...Appellant vs. Burzor Rustom Joshi & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Sneha Nanandkar i/b M/s.Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the appellant Mr.Rajesh Patil for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the appeal the challenge is to the order passed by the City Civil Court on application under section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950. 2 In view of the settled position of law, this appeal is maintainable only on substantial question of law. 3 A change report was filed before the Deputy charity Commissioner in respect of a trust Seth Merwanjee Framjee Panday Charitcable Trust . The change report was filed by one Rustom B. Joshi stating that the present appellant has been appointed as a trustee of the trust in question in the meeting of trustees held on 16 th May 1987. It was claimed in the change report that the appellant was appointed as a trustee of the Trust. The change 2 fa901 report was accepted. The first respondents preferred an appeal before the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner has set aside the order passed on the change report and has dismissed the change report. An application under section 72(1) of the said Act was preferred by the present appellant before the City Civil Court. By the impugned Judgment and order, the application has been dismissed. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the minutes of meeting dated 16 th May 1997 have been recorded in the Minutes book. He submitted that both the parties admitted that the minutes have been recorded in the handwriting of one Ms Farida Billimoria. He submitted that a copy of the minutes has been marked as exhibit in the evidence adduced by the appellant. He submitted that the said Ms Farida Billimoria was working as an Office Assistant. Once, it is an admitted fact that the minutes are in her handwriting, the same ought to have been read in evidence. He submitted that on bare perusal of the minutes of meeting, it is impossible to hold that the same are fabricated. He has tendered a photo copy of minutes book containing page nos.175 to 229. His submission is that the document which was admitted in evidence and the document of which handwriting was admitted ought to have been read in evidence. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The respondents disputed the fact that a meeting was held on 16 th May 1997. What was admitted by the 3 fa901 respondents was the handwriting of the said Farida Billimoria. The respondents never admitted that the document was the minutes of the meeting held on 16 th May 1997. The admission which is relied upon by the appellant is the admission of only the handwriting in as much as the case of the first respondent was that no such meeting was held on 16 th May 1997. Moreover, the finding of the Courts below is that the original minutes are not placed on record. 6 The burden was on the appellant to prove that the meeting was held on 16 th May 1997 and that the minutes produced on record are the minutes of the said meeting. The said fact could have been proved only by examining the said Farida Billimoria as a witness in as much as according to the Appellant the said Farida had recorded the minutes. In the appeal, the learned Charity Commissioner has specifically held that as the minutes were handwritten minutes, the appellant ought to have examined the said Farida Billimoria as a witness. Same is the finding recorded recorded by the City Civil Court. Even during the pendency of the application before the City Civil Court, there is no application made by the appellant for leading additional evidence. Though, an oral request was made today by the learned counsel for the appellant for leading additional evidence of said Farida Billimoria, even in this appeal there is no application made containing such a prayer. The concurrent finding of fact of the learned Charity Commissioner and the learned Judge of the City Civil 4 fa901 Court is that the appellant has failed to prove that a meeting was held on 16 th May 1997 in which he was allegedly appointed as a Trustee. In view of the concurrent findings of the two authorities, no substantial question of law arises. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE