Tiie High Court · 2025

nil Kurnar Singh, aged 35 Yrs., o.5-9-352, Sri Tech Towers,

2. Mr.K.Abhishek Kumar Singh, S/o. Late K. Anil Kumar Singh, Aged 34 Yrs.' Occ. Private Service Rl/o. Fiat No. 3D, H. No. 5-9-352, Sri Tech Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 50000 1 ...Respondents/Petitionersl & 2 Defendants Nos.1 & 2 3 4 5 Smt.K.Santosh Kumari, W/o. Late K. Pavan Kumar Sinry r, Hindu, Aged about. 50 Yrs., Occ. SeMce. Res no.3 and 4 are R/o Flat trto 5 O, H. No. 5-9-352 to 356, Sri Tech Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 5orl )01 Master K.Kunal Kumar Singh, S/o. Late K. Pavan Kumzrr Singh, aged 16 yrs., 9cc: Sluggnt, Hindu, a Minor under guardianship of his r roth6rhimely Smt- ' Santosh Kumari, W/o. Late K. Pavan-Kumar Singn Res no.3 and 4 are R/o Ftat No. 5 D, H. No. 5-9-352 to I 56, Sri Tech Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 50OOO1 Master K. Rohan Kumar Singh, S/o. Late Sandeeo Kunr rr Sinoh. Hindu. aoed 16 Y-rs., a Minor under guardianship of his mothei namr: r Smt] Anuradha " S.ingh, Wo. Sandeep, F/o. Flat No. 2D, H. No. S-9-3S2 I r 356, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.S. 500001

6. Kumari Rishika, D/o. Late K. Sande Yrs., Occ. Household, Fyo. Flat No Towers, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-T.s.500001. ep Kum Flat No arSingh Hin, u, aged about22 .2D, H. No. I -9-352, Sri Tech Res No.3 to 6 are not necessary parties lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ...Respondents/Res g cndents/Defendants Petition under Section 151 cpc prayinE that in the c r :umstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order and decreetal orders par sed in l.A. No.2s1 of 2025in o.S. No.21 of 2022 dated 19th June2o2s passed tr, the principal District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy pending disposal of the p -esent revision in the interest of justice. Gounsel for the Petitioner : Sri Aadesh Varma Cqunsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.Srinivasa Chary The Court made the following : ORDER INTHE HIGHCOURT F'ORTHE STATE OFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITTON No.2223 of 2025 176 DECEMBE& 2025 Between: Smt. Meena Devi and 4 others. l. Mr.K.Avinash Kumar Singh 2. Mr.K.Abhishek Kumar Singh ...Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs ...Respondent Nos.l & 2/Petitioner Nos.l & 2/Defendant Nos.1 & 2 3 4 5 6 Smt.K.Santosh Kumari Master K.Kunal Kumar Singh Master K.Rohan Kunrar Singh Kumari fushika ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No .251, of 2025 in O.S.No.2l of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short, the trial Court) in allowing the petition f,rled by the respondent ., a\ Nos.l and Zl&fendatt Nos.l and 2 herein praylng ttre trLr I court to receive the photo copy/Xerox copy of the unibgiSiered *ill deed r ated 23.0g.2020 a,'d photo copy/Xerox copy of legal notice datd l3.lz.z0zl r s secondary evidence under Section60(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyaro For the sake of convenience and clarity, the p: des herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial C-ourt.

2. Heard Mr.Aadesh Varma, leamed counsel for tL : revision petitioners and Mr.S.Srinivasa Chary, leamed counsel for resJr, ndent Nos.l and 2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisi, L petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial court, who have filed suit ir o.s.No.2l of 2022 before the trial court, seeking to declare thern as owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered rrill deed document )t>.171/lII/Z0lg dated I0-07-2018; to dispossess defendant Nos.l to 7 from the r rit schedure properry and induct the plaintiffs through Bailiff of the Cr urt; to declare rhe unregistered will Deed datd23.ag.2020 as null and,v., I and to grant future mesne prsf,rts for thesuit sehedurc property @ Rs25,00tl per acre, per annum from defendants from the date of the suit tilr plaintiffNor; t to 5 are inducted in possession of the suit schedule property and award costs : .the suit. 3

4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.l and 2 filed an application under Section 60 (c) of the Bharatiya Sakshay Adiniyam in I.A.No.25l of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 seeking to receive xerox copy of the unregistered will deed datd 23.08-2020 and xerox copy of legal notice dated

13.12.202L and mark the same as secondary evidence.

5. The gist of the affidavit is that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered Will Deed datet 10.07.2018, which is disputed by the defendants through a written statement filed in O.S. No. 2l of 2022.It is stated that prior to the present suit, Defendant No.4 and his elder brother late K. Akshay Kumar Singh had instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.5 of 2022 (old) O.S.No.SO of 2022 (new) based on an alleged unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.202O said to have been executed by their grandfather late K. Jagath Singh, but due to the death of Akshay I(umar Singh the said suit was not prosecuted by the legal heirs and was dismissed for default. [n the affrdavit it is further asserted that the plaintiffs filed the present suit with full knowledge of the existence of the unregistered Will datd 23.08.2020. It is alleged that during the pendency ofthe earlier suit, Defendant Nos.l and 2 were residing at their native village and that Defendant No.2, who was in custody of all original documents, had kept them at his house, from where they were allegedly stolen 4 between 08-03.2022 and 10-03-2022 during his,absence, incruding the original utiregistered wrtrl datird 23.08.2020 and the ldgi[notice, ated 13.12.2021. Ir is further stated that a compraint in this regard was eventrr LIly rodged before the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy on r4.M.2022. Th : affidavit also craims that while carrying doctrments to hand over to his Adr ocate at Bodhan, the documents were lost,. and owing to such loss of the .r iginals, the deponent seeks permission to receive Xerox copies of the unregir r )red will Deed dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice datd 13.lZ.ZO2l as sec<,r dary evidence. 6' opposing the said application, the plaintiffis fired r counter denying art the averrnents made in the affidavit and contended that th :y have instituted the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of pos:; ,ssion, future mesno profits, and for a decraration that the unregistered wi, I) ed dated z3.og.zo20 is null and void and not binding on them. It is furthe- contended that the defendants failed to produce the original docnments or lay any legal foundation for seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence, endering the prayer vague, improper, and liable to be dismissed with e > ernplary costs. The plaintifls also pointed out fundamental infi,rmities in thr: rppliqations filed by the defendants, namery that the copies of the petitions sr: ved on the praintiffs contained an incorrect cause titre and that one of the peti ions was filed under an lncorrect provision of law. r ( 5 7- The plaintiffs assert that the certified copy ofthe plaint and the docket order dated 03fr5.2024 passed in the collusive partition suit have already been marked as Exs. A-15 and A-16 in the present suit, clearly establishing the defendants' active involvement in the earlier proceedings. The plaintiffs contend that the petitionerVdefendants are falsely projecting tlrcmselves as innocent and unaware of the collusive partition suit, whereas in reatity they deliberately did not pursue it as their falsehood and ill intention would have been exposed had the suit been contested. While admitting that the present suit has been filed based on the registered will dated 10.07.2018, the plaintiffs emphatically deny any knowledge of or existence of an unregistered Will dated

23.08-2020, asserting that late Jagat Singh never executed such a Will and that the same has been forged, fabricated, and created in collusion by the defendants to unlawfully deprive the plaintiffs of their rightful property. The plaintiffs further allege that the police complaint relied upon by the defendants appears to be fabricated, as it was lodged on l4-M-2022 before the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, and contains contradictions within the affidavit iSelf, rendering the defendants' version unbelievable. According to the plaintiffs, these contradictory statements demonstrate a deliberate atternpt 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 6 receive Xerox copies of the alleged Will and legal notice as secondary evidence is termed as misrepresented, misconceived, v,: .atious, and devoid of merit' The plaintiffs further contend that the photocotrr: ls were mechanicaily obtained and cannot be presumed to be true or a@uate, and that the failure of the defendants to mention the alleged ross of the docrr nents in their written statement goes to the root of the ma6s1, warranting ln adverse inference against Defendant Nos. I and 2. 8' It is further averred that the alleged police eomp I rint is fabricated and brought into existence only to mislead the trial court and that Defendant Nos. I and 2 have thereby rendered themselves liz.l le for pe4.ury. Thc plaintiffs contend that it is a settled proposition ofraw tti t a photocopy cannot be admitted or marked'as secondary evidence unless the ; randatory conditions prescribed under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sal.r hya Adhiniyam are strictly satisfied, and in the absence of such compliar ce, photocopies are inadmissibre in evidence' on these grounds, the plaintiff; prayed for dismissar of the petition.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for both the plaintiffs aad the defendants' and upon considering the entire material on r :cord as well as the decisions cited' the reamed triar Judge opined that the -f rr gments relied upon ) 7 by the plaintiffs were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The trial Court further observed that the plaintift themselves had filed a Xerox copy of the unregistered Will De€d datd 23.O8-2020, which was found to tally with the Xerox copy produced by Defendant Nos.[ and 2. It was also noted that the plaintiffs had sought a declaration to declare the said unregistered Will Deed as null and void and not binding on them. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 251 of 2025 in O.S. No. 2l of 2022 and permitted the Xerox copies of the unregistered Will Deed dated 23.08.2020 and the legal notice dated 13.12.?:021 to be received as secondary evidence on behalf of Defendant Nos. I and 2, without costs. I0. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.06.2025, the plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. [.earned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the leamed rial Court committed serious errors of law and fact by misreading and misunderstanding the pleadings and by erroneously permitting defendant Nos.l and 2 to produce photocopies of the alleged unregistered Will Deed datd 23.08.2020 and the legal notice as secondary evidence under Section 60(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It was argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that no foundational pleading regarding the loss or destruction of the original Will Deed was nrade in the written statement, despite it having been f,rled after the alleged loss, and that 8 mere referenoe to a disputed'document in the pleadinr i does not sadsry the mandatory legal requirements for admittin! secondary vidence. The reamed counsel further submitted that the trial court erred in ht rting the alleged wiil as a n@ssary document solely on the ground that ,l e plaintiffs sought a declaration declaring it nufi and void, even thougr the plaintiffs have consistently asserted that the document is forged and f rbricated. It was arso contended: that the triar court ignored materiar aod c.; tradictory statements made by the defendanrs regarding the alleged loss ,f the original Wrll, alternately claiming theft from their native vilage an,i ross in transit while going to their Advocate and wrongly brushed aside sucr mutually destructi,ve stands as typographicar errors, despite the fact that these inconsistencies go to the root of the matter and were sufficient to reject the apu ication. 11' The main grievance of the plaintiffs is that the lerr: ned triar Judge ought not to have allowed the petition seeking to receive th : said documents as secondary evidence under Section 60(c) ofthe Bharatiy: Sakshya Adhiniyarn, in view of the char inconsistencies in the averment:i made by Defendant Nos' I and 2 before the trial court. It is pointed out t lat, according to the affidavit filed by the defendants, their initiar cas€ was tha a theft had occuned at their native house berween og.o3-2022 and r0-03.20211 allegedly commined by unknown persons, during which several origingl iocuments including 9 pattadar passtools, passbooks belongrng to their gandfather, the original unregistered Will D€ed dated 23.08.2020, and the copy of the legal notice datd 13.12.2021 were stated to have been stolen.

12. It is further contended that defendant Nos.l and 2 initially approached the Jukkal Police Station to lodge a complaint, but as the Station House Offrcer allegedly refused to register the same, they were constrained to approach the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, before whom they lodged a complaint dated 14.04-2022, which was received under acknowledgment No. KMRDY/SPKMD/KMWY1!40422!N078- [t is also contended that, pursuant to the said complaint before the Superintendent ofPolice, the Jukkal Police received the report on 15.O3.2022.

13. tramed counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently argued that the dates mentioned in'the affrdavit demonstrate that the story of theft narrated by defendant Nos. I and 2 is fabricated aod false. According to the defendants, the alleged theft occurred between 0E.03.2O22 and 10-03.2022' when they discovered that the house lock broken open by unknown persons' The ptaintiffs' counsel pointed out that, if this were true, the defendans ought to have immediately reported the incident to the police, as house-breaking in the absence of residents constitutes a serious offence. The delay of nearly one - \'\-. \ 10 month in approaching the superintendent of police, Karo rreddy o n 14.04.2022, raises serious doubts about their version. Furthermore, rl e praintiffs contended that the sequence of events regarding the Jukkat porice Station receiving the report on 15'03'2022, prior to the defendants approachi rg the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy, is contradictory atrd unexpr* ned. No satisfactory explaraation has been provided for trrese inconsisten,; es in the compraint. Additionally, the plaintiffs highrighted contradicto. statements in the defendants' affidavit, wherein Defendant No.2 claimed tc have rost the originar documents, incruding the unregistered w,l Deed date.t 23.0g.2020 and the Iegal notice datd 13.12-2021, wh,e carrying them to Er dhan to hand over ro his Advocate' This areged ross, occurring during trrr rsit, is said to have prevented the defendants from firing the originals before he trial Cour.t, which the plaintiffs argue rs implausible and inconsistent. 14' t€amed counsel for the plaintiffs contended thal .he will Deed dated 23'08'2020, which the defendants sought to bring on -ecord as secondary evidence' is itserf the subject matter ofthe suit, being disp uted by the plainti,ffs as false' forged, and fabricated. He further argued that e,r :n for the purpose of provlng or disproving the authenfieity of the wirl, including forensic examihation' the originar document is essential; a mere i( :rox copy cannot be subjected to forensic testing. The plaintif! also pointect out that the Ieamed LL trial Judge failed to consider the contradictory statements made by the defendants in their affidavit v,tile allowing the Xerox copies as secondary evidence. The Judge relied on the fact that the Xerox copy the defendants sought to mark was identical to the copy filed by the plaintifh, who were seeking a declaration that the Will is null and void, and therefore concluded that it could be received in evidence. According to the plaintiffs, this reasoning ignored the material inconsistencies and contradictions. in the defendants' statements, which undermined their credibility. I I

15. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the defendants argued that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs and that the Xerox copy satisfies the requirements for secondary evidence. However, upon perusal of the affidavit and the contents relied upon by the defendants, this Court finds multiple contradictions and inconsistencies that render their version unbelievable. Consequently, it cannot be held that the documents can be properly received as secondary evidence. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the l€arned trial Judge ened in allowing the Xerox copies of the Wi[ Deed and legal notice as srcondary evidence, and that the order passed by the trial Judge deserves to be set aside.

16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.25 I of 2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 passed by 72 the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamare rdy. consequently, I'ANo.25 I of 2025 in o.S.No.2l of 2022 is liable to be dis nissed. There shalr be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending i . any, shall stand closed. .-/ Sd/- i/I. OSMAN ALt BAIG ASSII; ANT REGISTRAR :* I ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kamaredd'r 2. One CC to Sr:i Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S.Srinivasa Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SvVltam a HIGH COURT DATED:17l12l2Ozs ORDER CRP.No.2223 of 2OZs l I I t .') 11 s r, ( 1 6 i:B ;1t26 ''--.'(-'Sn a * 0 ALLOWING THE CRP 0l $ €