INUGANTI BHAVANI Vs. INUGANTI GIRIJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S.No.39 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, against the respondents for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties. Trial of the suit is in progress. 1st petitioner (PW1) stated that she married one Venkata Jagannadharao and that the 2nd petitioner is their son. It was alleged that during his life time, Venkata Jagannadharao married the 1st defendant, even while the marriage between himself and PW1 was subsisting.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, DWs 1 to 3, were examined. DW4 by name N.Adinarayana Murthy was examined in chief. During the course of his cross-examination, he was confronted with a photograph, which was already marked in Ex.A3 and two other photographs. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents stating that the photographs are not relevant to the aspect on which DW4 was deposing before the trial court. The trial court sustained the objection.The same is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Sri Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that DW4 has categorically stated in his evidence that he knew late Jagannadharao and that DW1 married him (Jagannadharao) and it was in this context, that DW4 was confronted with the photographs of Jagannadharao. Placing reliance upon Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel submits that such a step is permissible and that the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.