Adverse inference and proof of title: withheld documents and surrounding possession defeated the claim to Survey No. 134.

Documentary entries alone did not establish title to Survey No. 134 where earlier survey records omitted the appellant's family name and surrounding circumstances showed possession only in a fiduciary capacity as manager of the Dargah. The Court held that a party withholding material documents in its possession may face an adverse inference, and a bare plea on burden of proof is insufficient when the best evidence is suppressed. On that basis, Survey No. 134 was treated as the property of the Dargah and not of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether Survey No. 134 of village Wadi belonged to the Dargah or to the appellant.

Analysis: The documentary entries relied upon by the appellant did not establish title, particularly where the family's name was absent from the earlier survey record. The surrounding circumstances showed that the appellant's family was in possession in a fiduciary capacity as manager of the Dargah, and not as owner. The Court also held that when a party withholds material documents in its possession, an adverse inference may be drawn against it, and the Court is not bound to accept a bare plea of onus of proof while the best evidence is withheld.

Conclusion: Survey No. 134 was held to be the property of the Dargah and not of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A party in possession of material evidence who withholds it may suffer an adverse inference, and documentary entries must yield to stronger surrounding evidence when title to property is in issue.

---