Summoning registration records from the Sub-Registrar's office only proves the factum of registration and does not satisfy the statutory requirements for proving the execution of a Will under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act.

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.21 of 2024 in O.S. No.135 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajanna Sircilla at Sircilla.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners, who are defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit, filed an application under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, Telangana, 1990 , seeking issuance of summons to the Sub-Registrar, Sircilla, for production of original records, namely, the entries relating to a registered Will deed bearing Document No.20 of 1977 of the Sub-Registrar Office, Sircilla, dated 06.10.1977, entered in Volumes 74 and 75 of Book No.3. The said records were sought to be summoned for the purpose of confronting and comparing the same with Ex.B-1 marked in the main suit. The Court below, by the impugned order, upon considering the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held that no tenable grounds were made out for summoning the Sub-Registrar to produce the original records and, accordingly, dismissed the application.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application on a misconceived premise, as if the petition was filed merely for summoning the Sub-Registrar’s office. He contends that under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the Court is empowered to summon documents, and that the reasons assigned by the petitioners for summoning the records, namely, for comparison were sufficient and germane. It is further submitted that the respondents have denied the execution of the Will and have raised objections regarding the stamp affixed thereon. In such circumstances, summoning the records from the Sub-Registrar’s office would aid in establishing the genuineness of the Will.

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court failed to consider the pleadings of both parties, as reflected in the plaint and written statement, while adjudicating the application. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on J. Kumaradasan Nair v. Iric Sohan [(2009) 12 SCC 175], M/s. Puri Investments v. M/s. Young Friends [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279], and Azgar Barid (D) by L.Rs v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi [(2022) 5 SCC 334], wherein it has been held, inter alia, that quoting an incorrect provision of law does not defeat a lawful claim, that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised in cases of non-consideration of material evidence or conclusions contrary to record, and that in a partition suit, defendants stand on equal footing with the plaintiff. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for issuance of directions to summon the documents. Thus prayed for interference and to allow the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and in accordance with law. He contends that the document sought to be summoned has already been marked as Ex.B-1 and that the proof of a Will is specifically governed by Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to him, summoning the Sub-Registrar or the registration records merely for comparison with an already marked certified copy would serve no useful purpose. It is further contended that the respondents have denied the execution of the Will and not its registration. Therefore, summoning the records