MUNI REDDY Vs. SAROJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have preferred the present writ petition assailing the Order dtd. 21/11/2017 passed on I.A. No.6 in O.S. No.7384/2007 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to adduce the secondary evidence in respect of Agreement of Sale dtd. 18/5/1988 has been rejected by the Trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed suit in OS No.7384/2007 for partition and separate possession seeking 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties, 1/2 share in Item Nos.1 and 2 and also for declaration that the Sale Deeds executed by defendant Nos.5 and 6 along with their father in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs on their 1/4th share each and other reliefs. Pursuant to the service of summons, defendant No.2 has filed written statement denying the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants.

(3.) This being so, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.6 under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to produce the Xerox copy of the Agreement of Sale by way of secondary evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that in the said Agreement, it has been stated that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and as such, the agreement is relevant for the proper adjudication of dispute between the parties.