( 1 ) THIS Court ordered Notice before Admission on 31-1-2006 and granted interim stay for a limited period. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents-defendants, entered appearance.

( 2 ) SRI T. Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned I additional District Judge, Warangal had committed an error in declining permission to the petitioner to file the document, i. e. , the certified copy of the registered Will deed bearing Doc. No. 16/1964 dated 10-8-1964 executed by Sri Varadarajulu, and mark the same as an exhibit. The learned Counsel would also maintain that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, initially by mistake it was mentioned that the original is in the "public office", but, however, in the additional affidavit, the same was clarified and it was specifically stated at Paragraph 5 that neither the petitioner nor the respondents are the beneficiaries under the Will and the original was with the legal heirs of varadarjulu and they also died and as such she is unable to produce the original. The learned Counsel would also maintain that in the light of the peculiar facts the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application relying on Section 65 of the evidence Act, 1872, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience), stating that the petitioner had not issued notice to any of the beneficiaries to produce the document. The learned Counsel would also maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken in the additional affidavit, this reasoning cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would maintain that in the light of the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Act read along with Section 57 of the Indian registration Act, 1908, the certified copy is admissible, especially, in the light of the specific stand taken that she is unable to produce the original for the reason that even the beneficiaries, the legal heirs of varadarajulu, are no more and the next generation legal heirs are in hand-in-glove with defendants and hence, the original cannot be produced.

( 3 ) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the learned judge recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the petitioner had not issued any notice to the beneficiaries to produce the document in question, unless such steps are taken, permission as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the reasons, which had been recorded by the learned judge.

( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel on record and perused the impugned order.

( 5 ) B. Poornima, the revision petitioner herein as plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 34 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional district Judge, Warangal, claiming the relief of partition. The first respondent-first defendant is the father, the second respondent-second defendant is the mother and the third respondent-third defendant is her sister. It appears that father is particular of denying the relief of partition to this daughter. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to go into further factual details, which may have to be decided at length at appropriate stage. Suffice to state that the revision petitioner filed an application under section 65 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the Code ), to permit the petitioner to file the certified copy of the registered Will deed vide document no. 16/1964 dated 10-8-1964 executed by varadarajulu, and permit her to mark it as an exhibit. It is said that the first defendant, father, had taken a stand that the plaint schedule property was not inherited by him from her grandfather i. e. , the father of the first defendant, but from his brother varadarajulu. It is stated that she came to know that the said Varadar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document