Yogi Raj Ambekar vs Smt. A.Savitha Rani
2025 Latest Caselaw 5450 Tel

Telangana High Court

Yogi Raj Ambekar vs Smt. A.Savitha Rani on 12 September, 2025

          The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara

         Civil Revision Petition No.1636 of 2024

Order:

      This is a Revision Petition filed aggrieved by the order

dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned II Additional District

Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.744 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of

2016, wherein, a petition filed under Section 65 of Indian

Evidence Act with a prayer to permit to mark the xerox copy

of Will Deed dated 18.01.1993 as Ex.B1 as secondary

evidence on their behalf, has been dismissed.


2.    Heard Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the

revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 6 and Sri P.

Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. The case of revision petitioners is that paternal

grandfather of revision petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Laxman

Rao Ambekar was the owner and possessor of suit schedule

properties 'A' and 'B'. The said Laxman Rao Ambekar died in

the year 2016. He executed a Will Deed in the presence of

Sri Hari Har Rao, a Senior Advocate and Sri B. Laxmi ::2::

Narayana and attested by Advocate Sri Narsimha Reddy on

18.01.1993. The respondent No.1 who was divorced used to

reside with his grandfather and assist him. Late Laxman Rao

Ambekar allotted a share of the property to respondent No.1

as mentioned in the Will Deed. The respondent No.1 was

collecting rents and original Will Deed was handed over to her

and it is in her possession. The revision petitioners got a legal

notice date 22.10.2016 issued requesting to hand over the

Will Deed but she intentionally denied the same. Therefore,

present petition under revision is filed, i.e. to permit to lead

secondary evidence.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the

execution of Will Deed dated 18.01.1993 and therefore, the

question of possessing it does not arise. The respondent No.1

pleaded that false story is created for the purpose of the case

and denied the possession of Will Deed by her. Since no Will

Deed was executed by Dr. Laxman Rao Ambekar, no xerox

copy can be received and marked as secondary evidence. In

this regard, the respondent No.1 referred to judgment of this

Court in case between Keshava Reddy v. Bal Reddy and ::3::

others in CRP No.1846 of 2012 {2017 (1) ALD 624 (TS)},

wherein, it is held that when a document existence and

execution is in dispute, secondary evidence cannot be taken

and said copy cannot be exhibited.

5. Upon considering the version of both the parties, the

learned II Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad referring to

judgment of Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra

Oil and Dal Mills and others {2010 AIR SCW 5200} held

that xerox copies are not admissible in evidence and that

once xerox copies are not admitted, xerox copy of Will Deed

cannot be permitted to be marked in evidence. As such,

dismissed the petition, leading to filing of the present Civil

Revision Petition.

6. In grounds of revision, the facts of the main case i.e.

Dr. Laxman Rao Ambekar being the owner of suit schedule 'A'

and 'B' properties, execution of a Will Deed dated 18.01.1993

in the presence of witnesses, its possession by respondent

No.1 are reiterated. Legal notice was issued to produce the

original Will Deed but the same is not produced by

respondent No.1 herein. Since the original is not available, it ::4::

is pleaded that the xerox copy be permitted to be marked in

evidence to prove the case of the revision petitioners, failing

which, they will suffer irreparable loss. The case of the

revision petitioners is that their paternal grandfather Dr.

Laxman Rao Ambekar executed Will Deed dated 18.01.1993

in the presence of witnesses and said Will Deed is necessary

to prove their case. However, the original is allegedly in the

custody of respondent No.1 and therefore, got issued a legal

notice to her to produce the original Will Deed. When

respondent No.1 denied existence of the Will Deed, a xerox

copy thereof is sought to be marked as secondary evidence by

invoking provision under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

Said Section 65 is extracted and produced below:

"65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given.

Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases :

a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

::5::

b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;

f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.

In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

7. The above Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act makes it

clear that secondary evidence can be received only in certain ::6::

circumstances when it is shown that said document is in the

possession or power of the person against whom the

document is sought to be proven or any person who is out of

reach of the Court or any person who is bound to produce it,

and in spite of giving notice under Section 66 does not

produce it or when the original is destroyed or lost or when

the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any

reason not of his own default or neglect is unable to produce

it or when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily

movable. However, when a document is not produced but its

existence, condition or contents have been proved to be

admitted in writing by the person against whom it is to be

proved or by his representative in interest also, a document

may be marked in secondary evidence.

8. In the instant case, the Will Deed is sought to be proven

against respondent No.1 and she is denying execution of said

Will Deed. When there is denial, since there is no admission

in writing by respondent No.1 with respect to existence of the

Will Deed as well as its contents, xerox copy of said document

cannot be marked as secondary evidence as the conditions ::7::

laid down in Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act are not

satisfied. As such, there are no merits in the Revision Petition

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned

II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.744 of 2023

in O.S.No.27 of 2016. Related interim applications are also

dismissed. No costs.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 12.09.2025 gvl