SUDDAPALLI LAKSHMI SAROJA Vs. VISHNUBOTLA MURLI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.S. No. 183 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. A common written statement was filed by all the respondents. In addition to opposing the plea of partition, they stated that there existed a prior partition and that the father of defendant No. 1 executed a Will on 20.10.2013. It was pleaded that the originals of the deed of partition as well as the Will, dated 20.10.2003, were lost on the way to the office of their counsel on 26.02.2011. They have also stated that a complaint was submitted in the Police Station on the same day and after thorough search, the police informed that the documents are not traceable. Stating those reasons, the respondents enclosed the xerox copies of the deed of partition and the Will. The petitioner filed a memo before the trial Court with a prayer to refuse to receive the xerox copies of the deed of partition and the Will. Opposing the memo, the respondents filed a detailed counter. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed a detailed order, dated 13.03.2013, holding that the Xerox copy of deed of partition cannot be received, as the certified copy thereof can be obtained, but the xerox copy of the Will can be received as secondary evidence. It was also observed that the respondents have laid adequate foundation in their written statement for receiving the secondary evidence of the Will. The said order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) HEARD Sri Ms. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

(3.) SECTION 63 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') defines the types of secondary evidence and Section 65 thereof stipulates the conditions under which the secondary evidence of a document can be received. If there is no dispute as to the existence or execution of the original document, the Courts would not face much difficulty in the context of receiving the secondary evidence thereof. Where, however, the parties seriously dispute the very existence of the original, of which, the secondary evidence is sought to be adduced, thorough scrutiny and verification are to be undertaken.