SHIVALINGAMMA Vs. REVANSIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed on interlocutory application filed by the applicant /plaintiff No.3 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff/applicant after leading his evidence has filed an application by producing the xerox copy of an unregistered partition deed dated 19.06.1972 and sought for marking of the said document as a secondary evidence.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a memorandum of partition entered into between the parties on 19.06.1972 and by virtue of the same he produced the said document on the allegation that the original was retained by defendant No.1 at the time of partition and in spite of issuance of notice to him he has not produced the original partition document same before the Court. Therefore, in order to prove the plea taken up by the plaintiff he sought for production of said document as a secondary evidence and he has stated that he has only got xerox copy of the said document.

(3.) This application came to be contested by the other side and ultimately the trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the evidence of PW.1 he has not properly explained as to how he came into possession of the said document and also in the application and affidavit, he has not stated that, the original of the said document was retained by defendant No.1 and a copy of the said document was given to the plaintiff so as to allow the plaintiff to lead such secondary evidence. On the basis of the some contradictory statement made by PW1 in his evidence on that ground the trial Court has rejected such application.