SMT. ROSHANI DEVI WD/O SH. BABU RAM SON AMIN CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALAHAT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P. Vs. SMT. TRIPTA DEVI D/O LATE SH. BABU RAM S/O AMIN CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALAHAT, TEHSIL & DISTRICT UNA, H.P.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMPMO. No. 78 of 2012.

(2.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to prove certified copy of the registered Will No. 43 dated 4.3.2003. It is undisputed before me that the suit was instituted by the respondents. Three Wills have been set up. One by Smt. Tripta Devi, second by Roshni Devi and third by Kanta Devi. These three Wills are subject matter of adjudication before the learned trial Court in the suit. The application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that no foundation has been made to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the fact as to whether the original Will has been lost/destroyed has not been proved. In these circumstances, there is no jurisdiction vested in the Court to exercise powers under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Adverting to CMPMO. No. 122 of 2012, on the same set of facts, the petitioner herein also set up a Will. Prayer for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove that Will was made, which was rejected.