CRP No. 6729 of 2003. Case: Amangenti Prameela and Anr. Vs P. Venkat Reddy (died) by LRs. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | CRP No. 6729 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C. Subba Rao, Adv. and For Respondents: P. Satyanarayana, Adv. |
| Judges | L. Narasimha Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63, 63(2) and 65; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 |
| Citation | 2004 (3) ALD 66 , 2004 (3) ALT 218 |
| Judgement Date | March 11, 2004 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
L. Narashima Reddy, J.
-
Petitioners filed O.S. No. 8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda for the relief of partition and separate possession. The trial of the suit was commenced. Petitioners closed their evidence and the evidence of defendants commenced. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.I. During the course of his cross-examination, it was elicited through him that a partition took place among various members of the family on 12.1.1980 and two sets of documents were executed evidencing the said partition. It was also elicited from him that one of the documents was kept with him and the other with one Mr. Pratap Reddy. He has not filed the document dated 12.1.1980.
-
Petitioners got issued a notice to D.W.I calling upon him to produce the original of the document, dated 12.11.1980, before the Court. There was no response to this. Thereupon, the petitioners secured xerox copy of the document, dated 12.1.1980, which is said to be a partition deed. They filed I.A. No. 156 of 2001 in the Court seeking permission to adduce it as secondary evidence. They also claim to have filed LA. No. 205 of 2001 for impounding the said document, since it was not stamped. LA. No. 205 of 2001 was dismissed on taking the view that no stamp duty can be levied on xerox copy of a document. The order of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3458 of 2001.
-
LA. No. 156 of 2001 was resisted by the contesting respondents. They took the plea that unless the original was available for comparison, the xerox copy of the same cannot be received in evidence. Through its order, dated 24.4.2001, the Trial Court dismissed the LA. Hence, this revision.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it was only after eliciting through D.W.1 that there existed a document dated 12.1.1980 and after issuing a notice calling upon him to produce the same, the petitioners have placed the xerox copy of the document before the Court. Learned Counsel submits that the conditions incorporated under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') are complied with and there did not exist any basis for the Trial Court in rejecting the I.A.
-
Sri Satyanarayana Peddareddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 2 to 8, on the other hand, submits that a fair reading of Section 63 of the Act discloses that the secondary evidence can only be the true version of the original and in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Revision Petition No. 4950 of 2011. Case: Lakkoji Mohana Rao Vs Lakkoji Viswanadham and Ors. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...possession of the parties. He has also relied on the case between Amangenti Prameela and another v. P. Venkat Reddy by LRs and others, 2004 (3) ALD 66, wherein it was held that a Xerox copy can be admitted as secondary evidence. Reliance is also placed on the case between Pariti Suryakantha......
-
Civil Revision Petition No. 4950 of 2011. Case: Lakkoji Mohana Rao Vs Lakkoji Viswanadham and Ors. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...possession of the parties. He has also relied on the case between Amangenti Prameela and another v. P. Venkat Reddy by LRs and others, 2004 (3) ALD 66, wherein it was held that a Xerox copy can be admitted as secondary evidence. Reliance is also placed on the case between Pariti Suryakantha......