GAYATRI BAI Vs. LEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being disgruntled by the impugned order dtd. 21/7/2025 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, DistrictDhar in RCS No. 01A/2018, whereby petitioner/defendant 's application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (briefly "IEA, 1872")[Now, Bharatiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for brevity "BSA, 2023")] for taking photocopy of a will as secondary evidence, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a Civil Suit for declaration and possession of the land situated at Survey No. 229/1, Village Kunwarsi, Tehsil and District Dhar admeasuring 0.732 hectares. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondents are the owner and possession holder of the land in question as they grow crops on the said land from many years. The respondent No. 4 being wife of the respondent No. 3, had with malafide intentions, mutated the said property in the name of the present petitioner. Further, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that against the said illegal mutation, the aforementioned respondents sent a legal notice to the petitioner and accordingly filed a suit in the year 2012, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed present suit in question.

(3.) Petitioner filed its written statement on 23/8/2018 and denied the submissions made by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in their plaint, The petitioner submitted that the said land was duly purchased by them from the respondent No. 4 in the year 2004, who was the true owner and possessor of the disputed land in question, and since then, the petitioner has been in ownership and possession of the said disputed property. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in order to admit the photocopy of the said Will as secondary evidence into the record of the present suit in question. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application after considering all the facts. Hence, this petition is filed.