The High Court · 2025

lVlaster K. Kunal Kumar Singh, S/o, Late K. pavan Kumir Singh, aged 16 Yrs., Occ. Student, Hindu, a It/inor under guardianship c,l his mother namely Smt. Santosh Kumari, W/o. Late K. pavan Kumar Singh Res no.3 and 4 are R/o Flat No. 5 D, H. No 5-9-352 to ;l ;0, Sri Tech Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 500001 It/aster K. Rohan Kumar Singh, S/o Late Sandeep Kuma-Singh, Hindu, aged " 16 Yrs a l\/inor under guardianship of his mothei namel, Smi Anuradha Singh, Wo. Sandeep, R/o Ftat No. 2D, H No 5_9,352,c 356, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T S. 500001 Kumari Rishika, D/o. Late K Sandeep Kumar Singh Hin i r, aged aboul22 Yrs., Occ. Househotd, R/o Flat No. Ftat No 2D, fl. ruo ; 9-352, Sri Tec Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 500001 (Res No. 3 to 6 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the ' -cumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, tn. Hign cou 1 may ue prea=eo to suslend the operation of the order and decreetar orders pa , sed'in r.A. trto. iso of 2025 in O.S. No 21 of 2022 dated .19th June 2O2S pas;ed Oy ff,e ff on Ole Principal District and sessions Judge at Kamareddy penrl rg diiposar of the present revision in the tnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: S Rl. AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I & 2: SRl. S SRINIVASA : HARY The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PETITION No.22lI of 2025 l7'h DECEMBER,2025 Between: Smt. Meena Devi and 4 others. ...Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs l. Mr.K.Avinash Kumar Singh 2. Mr.K.Abhishek Kumar Singh ...Respondent Nos.1 & 2/Petitioner Nos.1 & 2/Defendant Nos.l & 2

3. Smt.K.Santosh Kurnari 4. Master K.Kunal Kumar Singh 5. Master K.Rohan Kumar Singh 6. Kumari Rishika ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants OR.DER This Civil Revision Petition is fited by the petitioners/plaintiffls being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S,No.2l of 2022 passed by the learned 2 NNR,I ('.,1 D.No-221I o1202 5 Principal District & Sessions Judgc' Kamareddy (fo' ;hort' the trial Court) in allowing the petition f rled by t 'l I respondent Nos.l and 2/defendant Nos' l and 2 herein praying tlr ; trial Coutt to receive the photo copy/Xerox copy of the unregist:red will deed dated 23.08.2020 and photo copy/Xerox copy of leg rl notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidcnce under Sectior 60(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and acknowledgnr'nt of petition dated 15.03.2022 issued by Jukkal Policr Station and crime petition ackuowledgn''cnt No'KMRt'''JKLKMRDY/ 150322/00035 issued by thc Superintendent of Pot ce' Kamareddy under order VII Rulc l4(l) CPC' Forthesakeofconvenienceandclarity,tl:partiesherein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before thtl tr al Court' 2 Heard Mr.Aadesh Varma, lcarned counsel for the revtston petitioners and Mr.S.Srinivasa Chary' leanr' d counsel for respot-tdent Nos. I ar-rd 2. Perused the rccord

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisi''n petltloners are the plaintilfs befbre thc trial Court, who ha e fited suit in O.S.No.21 of ll2Zbefore the trial Cour1, seekirl to declare tlrenr 3 NNR.J C.R.P.No.22l I of 2025 as owners of the suit schedule property as per the registered will deed document No. l7llllli2Ol8 dated 10.07,2018; to dispossess delendant Nos.l to 7 from the suit schedule property and to induct the plaintiffs; further, to declare the unregistered Will Deed dated

23.08.2020 as null and void and to grant future mesne profits for the suit schedule property @ Rs.25,000/- per acre per annum from defendants from the date of the suit till plaintifl Nos.l to 5 are inducted in possession of the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit.

4. During the pendency ofthe suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order Vll I{ule 14 (3) CPC in I.A.No.250 of 2025 in O.S.No.2l of 2022 seeking to receive xerox copy of the unregistered will dccd dated 23.08.2020 and xerox copy of legal notice dated 13.12.2021, acknowledgment of Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, dated 14.04.2022 and acknowledgment of Police of Jukkal, dated 15.03.2022 on the ground that they are material documents to be received and marked on behalf of petitioners/defendant Nos. I and 2. 4 NNR,I C.l P.Nc-22 I I of 2025

5. The gist of the affidavit is that the ptaintiFl: lave filed the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership lver the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered V/ ll Deed dated

10.07.2018, which is disputed by thc defendants thi,ugh a written statement f,rled in O.S. No. 2l of 2022. lt is stated tlat priorto the present suit, Defendant No.4 and his elder brother late K. Akshay Kumar Singh had instituted a suir [. - partition in O.S.No.5 of 2022 (old) O.S.No.50 of 2022 (new) based on an alleged unregistered Witl Deed dated 23.08.2020 sa r to have been executed by their grandfather late K. Jagath Singh. ,ut due to the death of Akshay Kumar Singh the said suit was nol rrosecuted by the legal heirs and was disrnissed for default. It i alleged that during the pendency of the earlier suit, Def'endant Nt,r .l and 2 were residing at their native village and that Defendant Nc. l, who was in custody of all original documents, had kept them at lr; house, from where they were allegedty stolen betwcen 0l . )3.2022 and

10.03.2022 during his absence, including the origin r unregistered Will dated 23.08.2020 and thc legal notice dated l: :2.2021. lt is further stated that a complaint in this regard was eve r tually lodged befbre the Superintendent of Polics, Kamareddy cr 14.04.2022 5 NNR,J C.RP.No.22l1of 2025 The affidavit also claims that the documents were lost, and owing to such loss of the originals, the deponent seeks permission to receive Xerox copies of' the unregistered Witt Deed dated

23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.2021 as secondary evidence.

6. Opposing the said application, the plaintiffs filed a counter denying all the averments made in the affidavit and contended that they have instituted the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, future mcsne profits, and for a declaration that the unregistered Wilt Deed dated 23.08.2020 is null and void and not binding on them. It is turther contended that the defendants failed to produce the original documents ol lay any legal foundation for seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence, rendering the prayer vague, improper, and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The plaintifls also pointed out fundamental infirmities in the applications filed by the defendants, namely that the copies of the petitions served on the ptaintiffs contained an incorrect cause title and that one of the petitions was filed under an incorrect provision of law. lv\R../ C I P.No-221) of 2025

7. The plaintiffs assert that the certified copy ol rhe plaint and the docket order dated 03.05.2024 passed in the collrsive partition suit have already been markcd as Exs. A- 15 anc A- 16 in the present suit, clearly establishing thc delendants, activ j involvement in the earlier proceedings. 'fhe plaintiffs cont )nd that the petitioners/defendants are fatsety projccting themsel v :s as innocent and unaware of the collusive partition suit, whereas n reality they deliberately did not pursue it as their fatsehood a., i irl intention would have been exposed had thc suit been co I ested. While admitting that the present suit has been filed based orr .he registcred Will dated 10.07.2018, the plainrifls ernpharical y deny any knowledge of or existence of an unregistcrerl Will dated

23.08.2020, asserting that late Jagat Singh never e)( cuted such a Will and that the same has been forged, fabricated, a rd created in collusion by the defendants to unlawfully deprive tt t plaintiffs of their rightful property. The plaintiffs f urthcr allege r t at the police complaint relied upon by the defendants appears to Ie fabricated, as it was lodged on 14.04.2022 beforc the Superintenrl rnt of police, Kamareddy, and contains contradictions within the af idavit itself, rendering the defendants' version unbelievable. Accr rding to the 7 NNR,J C.R.P.No.221I of 2025 plaintiffs, these contradictory statements demonstrate a deliberate attempt to keep the forged Will away from the scrutiny of the trial Court, knowing that it would not withstand judicial examination Consequently, the prayer to receive Xerox copies of the alleged Will and legal notice as secondary evidence is termed as misrepresented, misconceived, vexatious, and devoid of merit. The plaintiffs further contend that the photocopies were mechanically obtained and cannot be presumed to be true or accurate, and that the failure of the defendants to mention the atleged loss of the documents in their written statement goes to the root of the matter, warranting an adverse inference against Dclendant Nos. I and 2.

8. It is further averred rhat the atteged police complaint is fabricated and brought into existence only to mislead the trial Court, and that Defendant Nos. I and 2 have thereby rendered themselves liable for perjury. The plaintiffs contend that it is a settled proposition of law that a photocopy cannot be admitted or marked as secondary evidence unless the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are strictly satisfied, and in the absence of such 8 NT'R,"7 C I P.No.22l I of2025 compliance, photocopies are inadmissible in evid: rce. On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed for dismissal of the per :ion

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the plrr ntiffs and the defendants, and upon considering the entire material tn record, the leamed trial Judge observed that I.A. No. 251 of 2025 tn O.S. No. 2l of 2022, filed by Defendant Nos. i and 2 under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyarr, had already been allowed with detailed reasons. By the said o-, er, the Court permitted receir,ing of xerox copies of the unregistr:r sd Will Dced dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 11.12.2021 as sccondary evidence on behalf of Defendant Nos. I I nd 2. For the very same reasons, the trial Courl also allowed Ll. No. 250 of 2025 and opined that, insofar as receiving of these rl ,cuments was concemed; no further reasons were required to bc ssigned. The Court further observed that the acknowledgments ssued by the Station House Officer, Jukkal Police Statirr r, and the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, in respect of t re complaints filed by Defendant Nos. I and 2, werc original docr nents. lt rvas also observed that the relevance or usefuln I ,s of these 9 Nl\R,J C.R.P.No.22l I of 2025 acknowledgments to Defendant Nos. I and 2 could not be examined at the stage of deciding the said application. Since the acknowledgments were originals, the Court held that it was bound to receive them.

10. The Court further held that receiving these documents would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffls, as they would be given an opportunity to cross-examine DWI with respect to the police acknowledgments, the xerox copy of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020, and the xerox copy of the legal notice dated 13.12.2021. For the aforesaid reasons, the triat Court allowed I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 2l of 2022 and permitted the reception of the xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020, the legal notice dared 13.t2.ZO2t, the acknowledgment of the Superintendent of Pol ice, Kamareddy dated

14.04.2020, and the acknowledgmenr of Jukkal police dated

15.03.2022 as secondary evidence on behalf of Delendant Nos. I and 2, without costs.

11. In view of the order passed by this Court in C.R.p. No. 2223 of 2025, it is evident that the documents sought to be received in 10 NNR,J C. e P.No-221 I of 2025 evidence by the trial Court are the very same docur( nts which the defendants sought to bring on record. 'fhe relief : lught by the defendants for receiving the xerox copies of the Will Deed and the legal notice acknowledgments is directly connected tc the receiving of the said documents. In view of the lllowing of C.R.P. No. 2223 of 2025 and the dismissal of I.A. Nc 25 I of Z0Z5 in O.S. No.2l of 2022,this Court is of the opinior hat the mcre act of receiving documents by the trial Court it mak:s them only part olthe record, though it may not serve any subsrz ntial purpose by itselt, does not confer any evidentiary valut upon such documents. Any document received by the trial Court afler condoning delay and granting leave under Order Vll lule l4(3) ol the Code of Civil Procedure is necessarily subject o proof and relevancy

12. 'f herefore, mere receiving of documents does not, in any manner, aff'ect their evidentiary value, as they remrr n subject to prool' and relevancy at the appropriate stage. An, objections regarding proof and relevancy must be raised at he stage of marking of the documents. The act ofreceiving a xerl < copy ofan Ll NNR,I C.R.P.No.221l of 2025 unregistered Will Deed on record and marking it as an exhibit, and the act of receiving such a document in evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, operate on entirely different footings. Mere receiving of a document does not amount to its receiving in evidence

13. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 2l of 2022 by the leamed Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 250 of 2025 in O.S. No. 2l of 2022 stands dismissed. There shatl be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.MALLIKAJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy' 2. One CC to Sri, Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. S Srinivasa Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies PM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER CRP.No.2211 o12025 ..--,-.--. 'io ,\ ilrr I r2.,1 ( ,c l,J t 16 'l',6 z * 1)r^ c 1'C .-\ * ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETII'ON Jxs f >e .