JAYALAKSHMAMMA Vs. RADHIKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The order dated 2-1-2014 passed on I.A. in O.S. No. 7713 of 2011 which was pending on the file of Court of Principal City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore is called in question. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit filed for relief of permanent injunction in respect of immovable property measuring 15 ft. East-West and 15 ft. North-South situated in Sy. No. 56/4, Sarakki Village, Bangalore. The property in question belonged to one Sri Narayanaswamy, father of defendant 1. He is stated to have executed an unregistered power of attorney in favour of Chengalarayappa, the deceased husband of plaintiff. The said Chengalarayappa is stated to have executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner, who is none other than his wife on the basis of the GPA. On the basis of the sale deed, suit has been filed for permanent injunction and the said sale deed is dated 31-12-2003. At the time of adducing evidence, the defendants have got marked the general power of attorney stated to have been executed by Narayanaswamy in favour of Chengalarayappa as Ex. P. 28. No objection was raised while getting the document marked.

(2.) As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Court should look into as to whether the document was really admissible in evidence since it was a secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Of course once document is marked the same cannot be objected to at a later point of time.

(3.) The said document which is marked as Ex. P. 28 has been impounded at a later point of time and the petitioner herein is directed to produce original GPA. It is this order which is called in question in the present petition.