Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1858 (TS)

Meena Devi v. K. Avinash Kumar Singh

2025-12-17

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short the trial Court) in allowing the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein praying the trial Court to receive the photo copy/Xerox copy of the unregistered will deed dated 23.08.2020 and photo copy/Xerox copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence under Section 60(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and acknowledgment of petition dated 15.03.2022 issued by Jukkal Police Station and crime petition acknowledgment No.KMRDYJKLKMRDY/150322/00035 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy under order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. Heard Mr.Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court, who have filed suit in O.S.No.21 of 2022 before the trial Court, seeking to declare them as owners of the suit schedule property as per the registered will deed document No.171/III/2018 dated 10.07.2018; to dispossess defendant Nos.1 to 7 from the suit schedule property and to induct the plaintiffs; further, to declare the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 as null and void and to grant future mesne profits for the suit schedule property @ Rs.25,000/- per acre per annum from defendants from the date of the suit till plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are inducted in possession of the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 seeking to receive xerox copy of the unregistered will deed dated 23.08.2020 and xerox copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2021, acknowledgment of Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, dated 14.04.2022 and acknowledgment of Police of Jukkal, dated 15.03.2022 on the ground that they are material documents to be received and marked on behalf of petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2. 5. 5. The gist of the affidavit is that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered Will Deed dated 10.07.2018, which is disputed by the defendants through a written statement filed in O.S. No. 21 of 2022. It is stated that prior to the present suit, Defendant No.4 and his elder brother late K. Akshay Kumar Singh had instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.5 of 2022 (old) O.S.No.50 of 2022 (new) based on an alleged unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 said to have been executed by their grandfather late K. Jagath Singh, but due to the death of Akshay Kumar Singh the said suit was not prosecuted by the legal heirs and was dismissed for default. It is alleged that during the pendency of the earlier suit, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing at their native village and that Defendant No.2, who was in custody of all original documents, had kept them at his house, from where they were allegedly stolen between 08.03.2022 and 10.03.2022 during his absence, including the original unregistered Will dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021. It is further stated that a complaint in this regard was eventually lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy on 14.04.2022. The affidavit also claims that the documents were lost, and owing to such loss of the originals, the deponent seeks permission to receive Xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence. 6. Opposing the said application, the plaintiffs filed a counter denying all the averments made in the affidavit and contended that they have instituted the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, future mesne profits, and for a declaration that the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 is null and void and not binding on them. It is further contended that the defendants failed to produce the original documents or lay any legal foundation for seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence, rendering the prayer vague, improper, and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The plaintiffs also pointed out fundamental infirmities in the applications filed by the defendants, namely that the copies of the petitions served on the plaintiffs contained an incorrect cause title and that one of the petitions was filed under an incorrect provision of law. 7. The plaintiffs also pointed out fundamental infirmities in the applications filed by the defendants, namely that the copies of the petitions served on the plaintiffs contained an incorrect cause title and that one of the petitions was filed under an incorrect provision of law. 7. The plaintiffs assert that the certified copy of the plaint and the docket order dated 03.05.2024 passed in the collusive partition suit have already been marked as Exs. A-15 and A-16 in the present suit, clearly establishing the defendants’ active involvement in the earlier proceedings. The plaintiffs contend that the petitioners/defendants are falsely projecting themselves as innocent and unaware of the collusive partition suit, whereas in reality they deliberately did not pursue it as their falsehood and ill intention would have been exposed had the suit been contested. While admitting that the present suit has been filed based on the registered Will dated 10.07.2018, the plaintiffs emphatically deny any knowledge of or existence of an unregistered Will dated 23.08.2020, asserting that late Jagat Singh never executed such a Will and that the same has been forged, fabricated, and created in collusion by the defendants to unlawfully deprive the plaintiffs of their rightful property. The plaintiffs further allege that the police complaint relied upon by the defendants appears to be fabricated, as it was lodged on 14.04.2022 before the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, and contains contradictions within the affidavit itself, rendering the defendants’ version unbelievable. According to the plaintiffs, these contradictory statements demonstrate a deliberate attempt to keep the forged Will away from the scrutiny of the trial Court, knowing that it would not withstand judicial examination. Consequently, the prayer to receive Xerox copies of the alleged Will and legal notice as secondary evidence is termed as misrepresented, misconceived, vexatious, and devoid of merit. The plaintiffs further contend that the photocopies were mechanically obtained and cannot be presumed to be true or accurate, and that the failure of the defendants to mention the alleged loss of the documents in their written statement goes to the root of the matter, warranting an adverse inference against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 8. It is further averred that the alleged police complaint is fabricated and brought into existence only to mislead the trial Court, and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have thereby rendered themselves liable for perjury. 1 and 2. 8. It is further averred that the alleged police complaint is fabricated and brought into existence only to mislead the trial Court, and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have thereby rendered themselves liable for perjury. The plaintiffs contend that it is a settled proposition of law that a photocopy cannot be admitted or marked as secondary evidence unless the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are strictly satisfied, and in the absence of such compliance, photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants, and upon considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Judge observed that I.A. No. 251 of 2025 in O.S. No. 21 of 2022, filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, had already been allowed with detailed reasons. By the said order, the Court permitted receiving of xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. For the very same reasons, the trial Court also allowed I.A. No. 250 of 2025 and opined that, insofar as receiving of these documents was concerned; no further reasons were required to be assigned. The Court further observed that the acknowledgments issued by the Station House Officer, Jukkal Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, in respect of the complaints filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, were original documents. It was also observed that the relevance or usefulness of these acknowledgments to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could not be examined at the stage of deciding the said application. Since the acknowledgments were originals, the Court held that it was bound to receive them. 10. The Court further held that receiving these documents would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs, as they would be given an opportunity to cross-examine DW1 with respect to the police acknowledgments, the xerox copy of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020, and the xerox copy of the legal notice dated 13.12.2021. 10. The Court further held that receiving these documents would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs, as they would be given an opportunity to cross-examine DW1 with respect to the police acknowledgments, the xerox copy of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020, and the xerox copy of the legal notice dated 13.12.2021. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court allowed I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 21 of 2022 and permitted the reception of the xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020, the legal notice dated 13.12.2021, the acknowledgment of the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy dated 14.04.2020, and the acknowledgment of Jukkal Police dated 15.03.2022 as secondary evidence on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, without costs. 11. In view of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2223 of 2025, it is evident that the documents sought to be received in evidence by the trial Court are the very same documents which the defendants sought to bring on record. The relief sought by the defendants for receiving the xerox copies of the Will Deed and the legal notice acknowledgments is directly connected to the receiving of the said documents. In view of the allowing of C.R.P. No. 2223 of 2025 and the dismissal of I.A. No. 251 of 2025 in O.S. No. 21 of 2022, this Court is of the opinion that the mere act of receiving documents by the trial Court it makes them only part of the record, though it may not serve any substantial purpose by itself, does not confer any evidentiary value upon such documents. Any document received by the trial Court after condoning delay and granting leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessarily subject to proof and relevancy. 12. Therefore, mere receiving of documents does not, in any manner, affect their evidentiary value, as they remain subject to proof and relevancy at the appropriate stage. Any objections regarding proof and relevancy must be raised at the stage of marking of the documents. The act of receiving a xerox copy of an unregistered Will Deed on record and marking it as an exhibit, and the act of receiving such a document in evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, operate on entirely different footings. Mere receiving of a document does not amount to its receiving in evidence. 13. The act of receiving a xerox copy of an unregistered Will Deed on record and marking it as an exhibit, and the act of receiving such a document in evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, operate on entirely different footings. Mere receiving of a document does not amount to its receiving in evidence. 13. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 21 of 2022 by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 21 of 2022 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.