IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
Meena Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
K. Avinash Kumar Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 2223 of 2025
Decided On : 17-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil revision petition and court hearing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of ownership dispute and legal proceedings (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. plaintiffs' counterarguments against secondary evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial court's observations and errors (Para 9) |
| 5. plaintiffs' objections to defendant claims and evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court finds contradictions in evidence (Para 15) |
| 7. final ruling and conclusion of the court (Para 16) |
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.251 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. 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 induct the plaintiffs through Bailiff of the Court; 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 Section 60 (c) of the Bharatiya Sakshay Adiniyam in I.A.No.251 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 and mark the same as secondary evidence.
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. In the affidavit it is further asserted that the plaintiffs filed the present suit with full knowledge of the existence of the unregistered Will dated 23.08.2020. 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 while carrying documents to hand over to his
Photocopies cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam without satisfying strict legal requirements, including proof of loss of originals.
The court clarified that receiving documents into record does not equate to their admissibility as evidence without strict compliance with statutory requirements.
Secondary evidence may be admissible when the original document is lost or misplaced, provided sufficient justification for its non-production is established.
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of secondary evidence, specifically the photocopy of a Will, and the requirement to prove the signature of deceased attestors. Th....
In order to admit secondary evidence of a document, the party seeking to admit the evidence must lay a proper foundation by showing that the original document is unavailable and that the secondary ev....
A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of Registration Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.