THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.972 of 2025

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2023 in O.S.No.121 of 2019 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in the form of a Xerox copy of a document dated 16.05.2010 titled "Family Bhaga Parishkar Settlement". It was the case of the petitioner that the original document was in the possession of respondent/defendant No.2 and that despite issuance of notice for production of the original, the same was not produced. The petitioner contended that the said document was executed between his deceased mother, Kusuma Rani, and the defendants regarding partition of ancestral properties and was scribed before witnesses and a notary.

3. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants, while admitting the pendency of the suit for partition and separate possession, denied the execution of any such settlement deed and asserted that the properties were already orally partitioned in the year 2000. They also contended that the document sought to be produced was fabricated and inadmissible in evidence as it lacked proper stamp duty and registration.

4. The trial Court, upon examining the contents of the document, held that the document amounted to a family settlement deed and not a mere agreement and concluded that since the original document was neither duly stamped nor registered, and as Xerox copies cannot be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act, the document was inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court thus dismissed the petition, holding that the Xerox copy could not be accepted as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard Sri M. Satish Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court was contrary to law, against the weight of evidence, and based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and legal principles and that the trial Court failed to consider several crucial contentions advanced by the petitioner in support of his claim. He further submitted that the trial Court had committed a grave error in dismissing the application merely on the ground that the Xerox copy of the "Family Bhaga Parishkar Settlement" could not be received as secondary evidence solely because the original document was unregistered and that the trial Court did not properly appreciate that the document, though titled as "Family Bhaga Parishkar Settlement," was in fact a family arrangement, which does not require compulsory registration under law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the document was sought to be used for a collateral purpose and that the original was admittedly in the possession of respondent No.2 and that the recitals of the document clearly stated that the original was retained by respondent No.2, and the petitioner had taken necessary steps by issuing a notice for its production. He further contended that the document bore the signatures of both respondents and the deceased mother of the petitioner, was executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses, and was scribed by a notary, which fortified its authenticity. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this civil revision petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the original document itself is inadmissible, and in the absence of the original, the same cannot be received as secondary evidence. H