JUTURU SATYANARAYANA Vs. JUTURU LAKSHMI DEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the plaintiff directed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel in I.A.No. 889 of 2000 in O.S.No. 225 of 1998, dated 14th December 2000, whereby the Court below dismissed the application to mark the Photostat copy of the agreement of sale dated 26-5-1993 as an exhibit.

(2.) The Petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit against the Respondent/Defendant for specific performance of an agreement of sale. As per the petition averments, the said agreement of sale was executed by the Petitioner's father, Juturu Reddinarayana agreeing to sale two houses, bearing Nos. 4/182 and 4/159. It is also his contention that in pursuance of the agreement of sale, as the required registered deeds were not executed, a notice was issued by the Petitioner and on receipt of the notice dated 13-12-1995 sent through an Advocate, the Petitioner's father executed a registered deed in respect of one of the items covered by the said agreement and with reference to the other item, the Petitioner's father sought for some time to execute the necessary registered deed. But, however, subsequently he died on 05-06-1996, leaving behind him his wife, the Respondent/ Defendant. Though there are other sons to the said vendor of the Petitioner, they have already relinquished their shares in the joint family property. Therefore, the Petitioner approached his mother, the Respondent to execute necessary registered document. As she insisted for the production of the original agreement, he had handed over the original agreement of sale to her. But when later demanded for execution of the registered deed as well as for return of the original agreement, she refused to return and denied about the receipt of original agreement by her. According to the Petitioner, a Photostat copy of the agreement was taken at the time of the agreement itself. As the said document was obtained by mechanical process, it ensures accuracy of the original document and the same would be equivalent to the original document. Hence, the same should be accepted as secondary evidence, under the above circumstances.

(3.) The said contention of the Petitioner was opposed by the Respondent/ Defendant denying the execution of agreement of sale by her husband as well as execution of a registered deed in respect of one of the items of property mentioned in the alleged agreement and in fact according to the Respondent/defendant the alleged agreement is a forged document and as the original was not placed before the Court to prove the execution of the said agreement by her husband, the Photostat copy could not be admitted as it is not a certified copy and the original was not produced before any authorities in connection with any of the proceedings and as it is only a Xerox copy of the alleged agreement. The same could not be marked as an exhibit, as it does not confirm the requirements of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.