Secondary evidence may be admissible when the original document is lost or misplaced, provided sufficient justification for its non-production is established.

ORDER :

K.Sarath, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.135 of 2023 in O.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/petitioner under Section 63 and 65 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , to receive certified copy of registered will deed No.21/1985, dated 13.09.1985 and the Orders passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Revision Petition No.D1/2/1999 dated 12.01.2009 as secondary evidence, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent No.1 herein is the sole-defendant in the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died and his L.Rs were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 4.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property.

5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 are the sons of D.Bakka Reddy, who was the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13.15 Guntas covered by various survey numbers situated at Vanapatla Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal and the said property was the self-acquired property of their father. The respondent No.1, being elder brother of the petitioner, got married in the year, 1970 and ever since the date of marriage he was residing at his in-laws’ house and the petitioner had been looking after his parents and younger brother, D.Bhasker Reddy. Therefore, the father of the petitioner executed a Will Deed in respect of the subject lands in favour of the petitioner vide registered document No.21/1985 dated 13.09.1985. Consequent on death of parents of the petitioner, the Will Deed came into force.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that after death of his father, the petitioner filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagarkunool for implementation of the Will Deed and for issuance of pattadar pass Book in respect of the property covered by Will Deed. On receiving the notices in the said application, the respondent No.1 appeared and raised objection and without examining any witnesses, the Mandal Revenue Officer dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner in file No.ROR No.373/1995 dated 01.03.1996. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the RDO, Nagarkunool vide Case No.F/1235/1996 and the same was allowed on 14.12.1998 by setting aside the order passed by the MRO and ordered to implement the Will Deed and accordingly Will Deed was implemented and Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deed were also issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the RDO, the respondent No.1 filed Revision before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Revision Case in file No.D1/2/1999 and the same was disposed of on 12.01.2009 directing both the parties to adjudicate their dispute before the competent Civil Court, leading to file the suit.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, thereafter the petitioner filed O