V DHARMA REDDY Vs. S HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated: 10-7-2001 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, in LA. No. 162 of 2001 in O.S. No. 44 of 1996.

(2.) The Respondent filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to him, he purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioners through a saledeed dated 13-6-1996. The petitioners contended that the respondent is yet to pay part of consideration, and, in that view of the matter, he was not delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It was in this context, that the respondent intended to rely upon an agreement of sale dated 23-4-1996 said to have been executed between them.

(3.) The respondent filed I.A. No. 195 of 2001 calling upon the petitioners herein to produce the agreement of sale dt. 23-4-1996 said to have been executed between them. He pleaded that the original of the agreement of sale was taken by the petitioners at the time of execution of the sale-deed on 13-6-1996. The petitioners did not agree with the contention of the respondent. It was in that context that the respondent filed I.A. No.162 of 2001 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to receive the Xerox copy of the said agreement of sale, as secondary evidence. The petitioners resisted the application on several grounds. According to them, Xerox copy of an agreement of sale cannot be admitted in evidence. They also pleaded that even otherwise, stamp duty cannot be collected on the Xerox copy of an agreement of sale. Reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the I.A., and, received the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 23-4-1996, as secondary evidence.