Shri Madhav Dattatreya Joshi vs Adv. Dattatreya Govindrao Deshpande & Ors.

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

Since the questions involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions Nos.7922 of 2025, 1178 of 2026, 1283 of 2026, 1039 of 2026, 1177 of 2026 and 1252 of 2026, arise out of proceedings concerning various Public Trusts created by “Sant Pachlegaonkar Maharaj” and the issues arising for consideration are substantially common, these six petitions are being heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The judgment is delivered considering the facts of Writ Petition No.7922 of 2025.

The original applicants/respondents namely Adv. Dattatreya Deshpande, Vinayak Deshpande and Gopalrao Gangadharrao Devkar had filed applications under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act against original defendant/petitioner namely Madhav Dattatreya Joshi and other trustees of the respective Trusts, namely Harishchandra Mahadev Jadav and Kashinath Gunaji Nehate, seeking their removal as trustees and appointment of the Original Applicants for managing and administering the affairs of the respective Trusts.

The present petition (W.P. No. 7922 of 2025) arises out of proceedings concerning Samasti Dharma Sanchareshwar Trust, Khamgaon, and is directed against the order below Exhibit 68 dated 18/11/2025, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Inquiry No.16 of 2012 whereby the application filed by the present respondents came to be partly allowed.

Similarly, brief particulars of the remaining five connected petitions are set out here:-

The aforesaid proceedings arise from disputes concerning the management and administration of various Public Trusts established by ‘Sant Pachlegaonkar Maharaj’. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present batch of petitions, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant background leading to the creation of the said Trusts.

Late Shri Narsingh Sanchareshwar Pachlegaonkar, who was also popularly known as and was venerated by his followers as ‘Sant Pachlegaonkar Maharaj’, had executed a Will during his lifetime on 23/12/1984. He has stated in the Will that he had dedicated his entire life for social and spiritual cause and for furtherance of the cause of Hindu religion and national interest. He had stated in the Will that it was his intense desire that all money left behind by him should be utilized for the said pious purpose. It is mentioned in the Will that during his lifetime, he had created the following five Trusts.

The Will makes a reference to four Schedules viz. schedule A to schedule D. Particulars of bank accounts are enumerated in Schedule A. Schedule B includes all immovable properties. The particulars of ornaments, silver utensils, etc. is made in Schedule C and Schedule D consists of list of major work done by him during his lifetime. It is clearly mentioned in the Will that all the movable and immovable properties, held by him were included in the Trusts that were created by him during his lifetime from time to time. The Will pertains to amounts and properties received by him after creation of the aforesaid five Trusts. It is specifically enumerated in the Will that he had left his home and relatives at tender age of eight years and thereafter he was related only to Mukteshwar Mauli. He had given clear instructions in the Will that after his demise, his blood relatives including brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, etc. will not have any right over the properties left behind by him. Sant Pachlegaonkar Maharaj left for his heavenly abode in 1986. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.7922/2025, (Madhav Dattatreya Joshi), Shri Harish Chandra, Mahadev Jadhav and Shri Kashinath Guna Nehate were appointed as executors under the Will. It is mentioned in the Will that provision for subsistence of the executors be made from the interest to be earned from the deposits mentioned in the Will. The Will makes a reference to 27 bank accounts and deposits. It is stated that account Nos.1 to 6 and 25 to 27 in the Will should be utilized for expenses of the Trusts set up by him. With respect to account No.7, it is stated that the interest from the deposit should be utilized for maintenance of Ashram at Sonpet. It is also stated that the account Nos.8 to 12 at Burhanpur should be utilized for meeting expenses of all the Ashrams. Similar instructions are issued with respect to account Nos.22, 23 and 24 and it is stated that money from the said accounts be utilized for the purpose mentioned earlier. He has directed to include the name of one Martandrao Patil as joint account holder with respect to account Nos.13 to 16 and 20 and 21 at Hyderabad. He has issued instructions with respect to account Nos.17, 18 and 19 at Hyderabad that the bank accounts be operated jointly. Elaborate discussion with respect to contents of the Will is made since the controversy in the present petitions revolves around intention of the testator as can be gathered from the Will.

The respondents in Writ Petition No.7922 of 2025, namely, Dattatray Govindrao Deshpande, Vinayak Krushnarao Deshpande and Gopalrao Gangadharrao Deokar have filed applications under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act 1950) against one Mohan Shyamrao Kulkarni and the other two executors, namely, Harishchandra Mahadev Jadav and Kashinath Gunaji Nehate. Allegations of misappropriation of funds and properties of the Trust are levelled in the said application under section 41-D. In the said proceeding, the respondents, original applicants had filed an application vide Exhibit 1-A seeking directions for production of certain records with respect to the Trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the said application vide order dated 13/02/2013 and pursuant to the said orders, documents such as books of accounts, notices, minutes of meeting, audit reports, statement of income and expenditure with respect to financial year commencing on 01/04/1998 till the financial year ending on 31/03/2012 are produced on record.

Based on the allegations and reply submitted, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed charges against the non-applicants on 09/10/2014. After framing of the charge, the original applicants led their evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner i.e. non-applicant No.1 started his evidence. During the course of the evidence, the aforesaid Will was produced along with the Schedules appended thereto. The Will is marked as Exhibit 65. It must be stated that both parties rely upon the Will and have different interpretation with respect to contents of the Will. However, for the present, it may be stated that the existence and execution of Will is not in dispute.

At the stage when cross-examination of the non-applicant No.1/petitioner was ongoing, the respondents/original applicants filed application by Exhibit 68 seeking directions for production of documents with respect to Schedules I to IV appended to the Will executed by late Pachlegaonkar Maharaj. The applicants/respondents sought production of the account statements with respect to 27 bank accounts/deposits, enumerated in Schedule-A, documents of title/donation of immovable properties mentioned in Schedule -B, receipts with respect to movables such as ornaments etc. mentioned in Schedule-C. Apart from this, production of a power of attorney executed by other two executors namely Shri Jadhav and Shri Nehate in the year 2006 was also sought.

The petitioner filed reply dated 17/11/2025 while Exhibit 69 opposing the application at Exhibit 68. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the properties mentioned in the Will are not properties of the Trust. It is stated that after execution of the Will, during his lifetime, late Pachlegaonkar Maharaj did not deem it proper to include the properties enumerated in the Will as properties of the Trust. The contention is that the Will is a private document of Pachlegaonkar Maharaj and has nothing to do with the trust in question. As regards the documents pertaining to immovable properties and movables, it is stated that the said documents were not available. It must however be stated that the reply is silent as regards availability of documents pertaining to the bank accounts. Likewise, with respect to the power of attorney, it is stated that the said document is a private document executed by two of the executors named under the Will in favour of third executor and has no concern with the controversy involved in the matter.

After hearing rival submissions as aforesaid, the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has partly allowed the said application at Exhibit 68, vide order dated 18/11/2025. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has directed the petitioner/non-applicant No.1 to produce the documents with respect to accounts at serial Nos.1 to 6 and 25 to 27 mentioned in Schedule- A of the Will and also to produce on record power of attorney executed by Shri Jadhav and Shri Nehate in favour of the present petitioner. The prayer for production of title documents of immovable properties and receipts of movables was rejected since the petitioner denied custody of the said documents.

Mr. Jugalkishor Gilda, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the application for production of documents ought to have been rejected on the ground that the same was not supported by affidavit, which is in breach of Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He contends that the said provision is held to be mandatory by several judicial pronouncements. The learned Senior Advocate further contends that the application was moved at a belated stage when the evidence of the applicants was concluded and cross-examination of the non-applicant i.e. the present petitioner was part-heard. Apart from this, a contention is raised that a roving and fishing enquiry cannot be allowed to be made under Order XI of CPC. Shri Gilda vehemently argues that initially on the date of filing of the application itself, an application for discovery of documents, as contemplated under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC was filed by the applicants/respondents in the petition, and accordingly, relevant documents were produced for inspection. He contends that there is no justification upon directing the petitioner/non-applicant to produce the documents on record. The Senior Advocate also contends that having regard to the language of the Will, the said documents are not material for adjudication of the application, under Section 41 D.

Per contra, Mr. Chiwarkar, learned Advocate for the respondents/original applicants, supports the order. He points out that the applicants/respondents have also filed separate petitions challenging the order, disallowing production of documents pertaining to all bank accounts. The learned Advocate contends that perusal of the Will, demonstrates that all the accounts were dedicated for the cause of the Trusts, created by late Shri Pachlegaonkar Maharaj and that none of the bank accounts were meant to be utilized for personal expenses of any individual. As regards delay, the learned Senior Advocate would contend that the Will itself was produced when cross-examination of the petitioner/non-applicant was part-heard. With respect to affidavit, the contention is that non-filing of affidavit is a curable defect and further that since the Will does not appear to be a disputed document, production of documents referred in the Will should be produced on record.

As regards the first contention of Mr. Gilda is that the application was filed at a belated stage and therefore, was liable to be rejected on this very count, it must be stated that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has mentioned in the order that the Will was produced at the stage when evidence of the petitioner/original respondent was part-heard. Perusal of the documents placed on record will indicate that the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the petitioner/original non-applicant is at Exhibit 58. The Will was produced on record along with a pursis at Exhibit 64. During the course of cross-examination of the present petitioner on 29/09/2025, the copy of Will produced by him was confronted to him and with consent of both parties, the copy of Will was marked as Exhibit 65. The respondents/original applicants are seeking production of documents which are enumerated in the Will. The Will makes a reference to 27 bank accounts and deposits, which are a part of Schedule-A, appended to the Will. Since the Will itself is produced at a stage when the cross-examination of the present petitioner was ongoing and the application, seeking production of the documents, is filed immediately on the next date, the argument pertaining to delay cannot be accepted.

As regards the second contention that the application is not supported by affidavit and therefore, is liable to be rejected, the learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon Order XI Rule 18(2) of CPC. The learned Senior Advocate has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court as also other learned High Courts on the point to contend that the mandate of Order XVIII Rule 2 of CPC that the application for production of documents for inspection is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality. Perusal of Order XI Rule 18(2) will demonstrate that affidavit in support of application for production of documents is needed only with respect to such documents, which are not referred in the pleading or particulars of affidavit of the party against whom directions for production of documents are sought. In the case at hand, perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner will demonstrate that there is a reference to the Will in the said reply. Likewise, the Will is produced on record by the petitioner himself. The Will is marked Exhibit with consent of both sides. Having regard to the aforesaid it must be held that the contention with respect to the requirement of affidavit in support of the application is misconceived. Since the Will finds a reference in the reply to the main application, filed by the present petitioner, there is no need to file affidavit in support of the application.

It must also be stated that such objection is raised for the first time in the present petition. It does not appear from the reply filed to the application or even from the order that this contention with respect to affidavit was raised before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Mr. Chiwarkar has rightly contended that if such an objection was raised, the alleged defect could have been cured before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner itself.

The third contention of learned Senior Advocate is that the respondents/original applicants cannot make fishing and roving enquiry with a hope to bring some material on record in order to establish their case. The learned Senior Advocate vehemently argues that adopting such a course is not permissible and that this is not the mandate of Order XI of the CPC. Learned Senior Advocate justifies the argument by pointing out that on earlier occasion relevant documents including books of accounts were produced on record for inspection and perusal of original applicants/present respondents.

I am afraid, the said contention cannot be accepted. As mentioned above, the Will was produced on record while cross-examination of the present petitioner was ongoing. The Will makes a reference to certain bank accounts. The respondents original applicants are seeking production of said bank account statements. It must also be stated that the petitioner is one of the executors mentioned in the Will. The applicants/present respondents have sought production of documents pertaining to bank accounts enumerated in Schedule-A appended to the Will. It cannot be said that the respondents/applicants are making any fishing or roving enquiry in the matter. They have sought production of specific documents.

In this regard, it will also be appropriate to state that whereas it is the contention of the respondents/original applicants that the properties enumerated in the Will are for benefit of the Trusts created by late Shri Pachlegaonkar Maharaj, the contention of present petitioner/original non-applicant is that the Will is a private document of late Shri Pachlegaonkar Maharaj, which has nothing to do with the Trusts created by him during his life time. Although late Shri Pachlegaonkar Maharaj had created the five Trusts named above during his life time, perusal of the Will indicates that he has not left behind any property for his family members or relatives. He has specifically excluded them from the Will. He has clearly stated that it is his intense desire that all his properties must be utilized for the benevolent and pious purposes mentioned in the Will. Moreover, perusal of contents of the Will in relation to the bank accounts will demonstrate that the funds in the bank accounts are directed to be utilized for the purpose of the Trusts. There is a clear recital that account Nos.1 to 6 and 25 to 27 should be utilized for the maintenance of the Trusts/Ashrams established by late Shri Pachlegaonkar Maharaj. Similarly, it is mentioned with respect to account No.7 that interest derived from the said account should be utilized for Ashram at Sonepeth. It is specifically stated that funds in account Nos.8 to 12 must be utilized for maintenance and expenses of all the Ashrams. With respect to accounts at Serial Nos.22, 23 and 24 at Khamgaon also clear instructions are issued that the funds must be utilized fro the purposes determined earlier. Likewise, it is stated with accounts at Serial Nos.13 to 16 and 20 and 21 that the same should be operated jointly by including the name of one Martandrao Patil as joint account holder. With respect to accounts at Serial Nos.17, 18 and 19 also instructions are issued that the accounts be operated jointly. There is no statement with respect to any bank account that the proceeds thereof should be allowed to be utilized by any individual. The Will merely makes a provision to provide for meeting day to day expenses and maintenance of the executors named in the Will and two priests.

Mr. Gilda, the learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of NTPC Limited ..vs.. Reliance Industries Limited, 2015(1) BCR 612 to contend that application for production of documents at belated stage could not have been entertained and that roving and fishing inquiry cannot be conducted by taking recourse to provision of Order XI of the CPC. In support of contention that filing of affidavit is mandatory reliance is also placed on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited and others ..vs.. Their Staff, 1959 SCC OnLine Ker 184 and The Management of the Agri. Horticultural Society, Madras ..vs.. The Workmen of the Agri. Horticultural Society, represented by the Madras General Workers Union and another, AIR 1966 Mad 375. Mr. Gilda, learned Senior Advocate also places reliance on judgment in the case of 20^th Century Fox Corporation (India) (Private) Ltd. ..vs.. F.H. Lara and others, 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 1 to contend that roving and fishing inquiry is not permissible and that an application for production of document under Order XI Rule 18(2) must be made on affidavit and that provision for filing affidavit is necessary. Reliance is also placed on Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and another ..vs.. Sangam Cinema, 1992 (2) MhL.J. 1403 to argue that practice of filing application for production of document during cross examination of the party is deprecated by this Court.

The ratio of the said judgment will not be applicable to the present case since the documents which are to be produced are referred in the reply filed by the petitioner/original respondent. Order XI Rule 18(2) of the CPC speaks about filing of affidavit in support of application for production of documents which are not referred in the pleading or evidence of the other side. The Will which refers to the bank account is referred in the pleadings as also the evidence of the present petitioner and as such, the said provision which warrants filing of affidavit is not attracted. Likewise, the argument with respect to delay also cannot be accepted since the Will is produced at the stage when cross-examination of petitioner was part heard. The argument that roving and fishing inquiry is made also cannot be accepted since the prayer is for production of specific documents.

Similarly reliance is placed on judgment in the case of Reliance Industry Limited ..vs.. NTPC Limited, 2014 BHC 3114 in support of his contention that power to order production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 is power of the Court and the said provision does not confer any right upon a party to seek production of a particular document. The power to order production of documents can be traced to Order XI Rules 12, 15 and 18 of the CPC. Therefore, the argument that Order XI Rule 14 will not be attracted will not take the case of the petitioner any further. It must be stated that this judgment also records that order for discovery of document can be passed under Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC.

The contention with respect to Section 41E is also rightly rejected by the Learned Joint Society Commissioner. Although earlier application under Section 41E of the MPT Act was filed and rejected, perusal of the order therein indicates that reference to bank accounts is not made in the said application. Section 41E is an application for grant of urgent interim orders. The order passed in the said proceeding cannot foreclose the issue with respect to the directions for production of documents.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly discarded the objection with respect to production of bank accounts. However, while doing so, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has erred in restricting the directions for production of documents with respect to account Nos. 1 to 6 and 25 to 27. The accounts at Serial Nos. 7 to 12 and 22 to 24 are also clearly stated to be for the purposes of the Trusts and purposes enumerated in the Will. Although specific directions with respect to accounts at Serial Nos.13 to 21 do not appear in the Will, overall reading of the Will clearly indicates that the properties in the will are not meant to be used by any individual. The intention to dedicate all the properties including money for social and spiritual purpose as also for furtherance of cause of national interest and Hindu religion is clearly exhibited in the Will. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have directed production of statements with respect to all bank accounts rather than restricting the directions with respect to accounts at serial Nos.1 to 6 and 25 to 27.

As regards the power of attorney, the power of attorney is granted by two other executors named in the Will in favour of the present petitioner, who is also an executor. The objection raised before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that power of attorney is a private document prima facie does not appear to be correct. It must also be stated that during the course of present petition, submissions were restricted to production of bank accounts only. In view of the aforesaid, the direction for production of power of attorney also cannot be faulted.

In the result, writ petitions filed by Mr. Gilda are rejected and writ petitions filed by Mr. Chiwarkar are partly allowed.

The respondent in Application Nos.14 of 2012, 15 of 2012 and 16 of 2012 is directed to produce all bank account statements available with respect to all 27 accounts enumerated in Schedule-A of the Will and also to produce on power of attorney executed by Shri Jadhav and Shri Nehate in favour of the petitioner/original respondent.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.