IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7603 of 2025

SANJAY KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS

Versus

JABALPUR AGRAWAL SABHA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vaibhav Tiwari - Advocate for the Petitioner.

ORDER mother of the Petitioners is void. To submit that in the property in the question there was a right of all the Plaintiffs, a Revenue Khasra stated to be signed by the Patwari on 16.12.1986 has been filed to contend that the name of all the Plaintiffs was recorded on the land in question and on the basis of this Khasra, it is contended that all the Plaintiffs are also having right and interest on the land in question.

By way of present Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

13.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court thereby rejecting the application under Sections 60 and 63 of Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023)

which corresponds to Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. A suit has been filed by the Petitioners against the defendants. The

Defendants No.3 and 4 are the Elder Brother and Mother of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs who had executed a sale deed on 05.8.1987 in favour of other Defendants while the Petitioners were minors. Now, the suit has been filed by the Petitioners more than 25 years after attaining the age of majority to challenge the sale deed dated 05.08.1987 in which no written statement has been filed by the defendants No.3 and 4 - vendors who are the elder

brother and mother of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs.

3. It is the case of the Petitioners in the suit that the property was a

joint family property and the sale transaction made by the elder brother and

4. The Plaintiffs filed an application under Section 60 of BSA for leading secondary evidence of this Khasra which purports to be a true copy of the original Khasra as available in the record of the State Government. This Khasra is not a certified copy but simply a signed copy prepared by the Patwari dated 16.12.1986.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that when the Petitioners attempted to obtain certified copy of the said Khasra, then it was intimated to them that the record between the years 1980 to 1985 is not available and therefore, they be permitted to lead secondary evidence of the signed copy available with them which is purported to be signed by the then Patwari.

6. The Trial Court has rejected the said application under Sections 60 and 63 of BSA, 2023 on the ground that since the document prima facie appears to be suspicious, therefore, secondary evidence cannot be permitted to be given of the said document. The Trial Court has also noted the discrepancies in the caption of the said document in as much in the form of 5 years Khasra, the Khasra prepared is of two years.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the Petitioners want to lead secondary evidence of a Khasra which is purported to be a true copy prepared from a Government record and signed by the then Patwari containing illegible signatures. When the Petitioners submitted application for certified copy then they were informed that the Khasra from the years 1980 to 1985 is not available.

8. The case is sought to be made out to tender secondary evidence for a copy made or compared from the original. However in such circumstances, the Petitioner is bound to establish that the copy was made from the original which ensured the accuracy of the copy or that the copy was made from or compared with the original and in case of photograph, it is required to be established that the thing photographed was the original.

9. In the application under Sections 60, the Petitioners have not disclosed the source of the said document that under what circumstances, who prepared the said copy and handed over to whom because the Petitioners were minors in the year 1986 when the said signed copy was prepared on a printed form. Nothing has bee